The Assembly met at 10.30 am (the Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Presiding Officer’s Business

Lord Alderdice: At the last sitting, one Member referred to a matter which was currently before the courts. To protect the due process of law, other legislatures routinely resolve not to refer to such matters in the course of their proceedings. Though it has not yet been agreed by the Committee on Standing Orders, I expect that the Assembly will, in due course, find that there is a proposal for a Standing Order on sub judice matters which addresses this. Until then I seek the co-operation of Members to avoid any action or statement which is likely to bring the Assembly into disrepute.
In this case I have spoken to the Member involved, and I am content that there was no intention whatsoever to undermine the work of the court.
MrMcCartney (page 67, Volume 2 of Hansard) and DrIanPaisley (page 68) raised the question of corrections to Hansard, and I undertook to address the matter. I have discussed this with the Editor of the Official Report, and the following advice has been issued.
With a view to having the preparations for the Hansard bound volumes completed as early as possible, Members are asked, by way of an amended corrections note on the inside of the front cover of the daily part, to submit future corrections within two weeks of a sitting. This means, for example, that corrections in respect of the last sitting — 15 and 16February — should be received by 1 and 2March respectively.
Corrections for Volume 1, of which the book of 1February 1999 was the last daily part, should be received by the Editor no later than 5March 1999. In other words, any corrections relating to any editions of Hansard dating from the first sitting through until the sitting on 1 February should be submitted by 5 March, as that volume is now complete and will shortly be going for binding.
In the future, there will be a two-week period during which Members will be able to submit corrections. In addition, as I mentioned before, it will be possible for Members to make corrections to their speeches after a period of two hours, by which time their speeches should be well into the Hansard system. So there is a period from two hours after a speech is made until two weeks after it is made for corrections to be submitted.
During the last sitting Mr McLaughlin asked me to give a ruling on comments made earlier in the debate by Mr Poots. I asked him to clarify exactly which comments he meant, as I myself had earlier made reference to comments made by Mr Poots. MrMcLaughlin said that the comments to which he referred had been made in relation to groups which might be represented on the Civic Forum. Specifically, he asked if it was an abuse of privilege for a Member to raise questions about whether representatives on the Civic Forum might have paramilitary connections — the word used was "infiltrated".
I have looked into the matter. Comments of this kind have been made outside the House on a number of occasions, and this has not led to legal action. We can have little doubt that the remarks used were disparaging, but the question is whether the Member was abusing the privilege of the House by making them. It does not seem to me that the protection of privilege was required, as similar statements have been made outside the House without their leading to legal proceedings. In any case, it seems unlikely that legal action would be taken in that regard.
Members will recall, however, that, at the time, I made reference to some other comments made by MrPoots. As I have before, I always study Hansard to check that it is a satisfactory record. I would like to return to this matter. I refer to page 94 of the Official Report — specifically to Mr Poots’s comments:
"Not only are we having anti-partitionists as members of the Stormont Government, but we are going to have anti-partitionists who engaged in terrorism to achieve their aims in that same Stormont Cabinet."
These are very specific remarks, and I have met Mr Poots to discuss them. We know that there will be a certain number of members from each party on any Executive that is set up. It is clear that this was a reference to Sinn Féin, which is likely to have two members on such an Executive under the d’Hondt system. I do not think that I am breaching any confidences by saying that. Therefore the remarks referred to a very small number of people, and there has been sufficient debate — I cannot say whether it has been informed debate or not — about who those two Members might be.
This changes the issue, and means that reference is being made to specific people, as opposed to a party as a whole. I have no doubt that if the arithmetic were slightly different, if the d’Hondt process were going to allocate only one place to that party, and if the name of the person likely to take that place were widely publicly known, these comments would have been unparliamentary. They would have constituted an accusation of criminal activity.
In such a case there might be clear evidence of criminal activity, including charges and convictions. That would be a different matter. However, to my knowledge, at least some of the Members from SinnFéin whose names have been mentioned in this context have neither charges nor convictions against them. Therefore it seems to me that the Member was at least at the edge of what is reasonable in the context of parliamentary speech.
I have to advise that Member — indeed, all Members — that were remarks to be made with this degree of definiteness in the future, I would have to intervene. I would, I suppose, be intervening on two questions, the first of which is whether the Member had evidence for his accusations. If he did not have evidence of criminal behaviour, but accusations of criminal activity were being made against another Member — and it might be on completely different matters in the future — such an allegation would be an abuse of the privilege of the House if it were specific to a Member, or very closely identified with a very small number of Members, as in this case.
On the other hand, if the Member had evidence of criminal activity, that would not be a matter for me, but, had he not brought it to the attention of the RUC, it might be that jeopardy had come from another quarter. Therefore I would caution Members. I suppose that many Members have found that they have been able to speak freely politically in the past, and that their comments have not gone on the record with quite the definiteness that is the case in Hansard. They must now become aware that when they make comments in the House, or indeed in Committees where Hansard is present, their remarks go on the record, and that there is a gravity to that that perhaps they were less acquainted with in their previous political life.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that ruling, Sir. I find some of the things that you have said to be quite amazing and, of course, I will study them in Hansard. It points to the fact that the Assembly should have a Committee of Privileges, to which these matters should be put, and then there could be a full and free debate among Members on the particular matters.
There was an exchange in the House at the last sitting between my Colleague Mr Robinson and MrMcGuinness. Mr Robinson quoted from a responsible Nationalist and Republican broadsheet, namely ‘the Irish News’, in which there was an admission by that Member that he was associated. For any Member to stand up in the House and say that people from the other side have not been associated with, active in, and holding office in the IRA is absolutely ridiculous. I will submit to no gag in this House from you or anyone else occupying the Chair, that would not allow me to state what is in evidence in the country.
I think that there is now an attempt by IRA/Sinn Féin to cloak over this matter. Every Member must be free, and if the Chair wants to throw Members out of this House because they state the facts, then let the Chair do it and take the responsibility. The Assembly should appoint a Committee on Privileges so that matters could be handled in the proper way, as happens in another place.
In another place I have heard these remarks concerning the Member for West Belfast. He is a Member of the House although he has not taken his seat, and there has been no ruling whatever from the Chair about what has been said concerning him. Why should Members here now adopt this attitude in trying to cover over what is absolute fact — that these people have been engaged in, and with, violence?

Lord Alderdice: First of all, in respect of the proposition for a Committee on Standards and Privileges, I wholly agree with what the Member says. The sooner that that Committee is established and has the backing of Standing Orders, the better — not just for matters of this kind, but also for other important matters, such as the Register of Members’ Interests.
Members should be quite clear about what I am ruling on. It is not on any comments by MrRobinson. I did not raise questions about them at the time, because Mr Robinson is an experienced parliamentarian and is well acquainted, as is DrPaisley, with what is possible and proper. I am referring specifically to the speech of another of his Colleagues, Mr Poots, where he — Mr Poots — could not have been referring only to the matters to which the Member refers.
My point is that in relation to some of the Members to whom he could only have been regarded as making reference, given the publicity about the question of the formation of the Executive in previous times, he would undoubtedly be seen in the public mind as making reference to Members who not only had no convictions but had not been arraigned on any charge, and had made no such comments as the ones that you ascribed to MrMcGuinness.
It is on that specific issue that I was raising the question, making the point and giving a ruling. It was not on the position that had been taken by MrRobinson, but on the speech by Mr Poots — not in respect of the speech by Mr Poots on the things that he thought I was talking about (that is to say, the other Member’s election literature of the past) but on the specific references he made. I have given guidance that that is right on the edge of what is acceptable, and if the matter were to be repeated I would have to intervene in the way that I have described.

Mr Peter Robinson: Further to that ruling, MrInitial Presiding Officer. I should like to make two points. First, perhaps there is confusion in some people’s minds in relation to privilege. Privilege covers Members of the Assembly in relation to what they may say about people outside. References to people inside this Assembly are a different issue. Even though one might know that someone in the Assembly is a murderer, one would not be entitled to say it in here because that would be a breach of another rule.
However, the issue in question in relation to MrPoots’s comments was not about any specific Member who is known. If Mr Poots had indicated that two specific Members of Sinn Féin had convictions, or were terrorists, you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, would be entitled to make the remarks that you have.
You have made some assumptions about what might be in the public mind about what Sinn Féin might do when they come to a point some time in the future. I do not think that you are entitled to make all those assumptions. The public mind may have many things in it, some of which might be in line with what you are suggesting, but unless a Member makes a specific accusation against specific Members he is not out of order.

Lord Alderdice: In many ways, you are simply reiterating, though with a somewhat different spin, what I have already said, which is that had Mr Poots been even slightly more specific in what he said, he would undoubtedly have fallen foul. That is why I said that he was on the very edge of what was acceptable. It is not mere idle speculation out of no knowledge on the question of who may or may not come forward.
There are clear implications. That is why I said — I repeat it, and it is my ruling — that it was on the very edge of privilege. However, the Member’s other comments on the question of privilege, with which he is familiar but with which many other Members understandably may not be, are helpful and illuminating for Members.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is it not the case that if the Members that you are speculating about, who may or may not be in the Cabinet, want to fully distance themselves from such accusations they can do so by simply agreeing to a test? Do they condemn violence emanating from the Republican IRA? If they are not prepared to condemn such violence is it not fair for a Member to draw a conclusion that their links with the IRA are inextricable?

Lord Alderdice: It is a fundamental tenet of the law in this country that people are innocent until demonstrated to be guilty. The Member is coming dangerously close to suggesting that Members should have to defend themselves against accusations even if there is no evidence of guilt. I believe that it would be an abuse of the privilege of the House, or of any other such place, for accusations to be made without evidence, so that Members would be put in the position of having to justify themselves. That would be flying in the face of a fundamental tenet of law.

Mr Patrick Roche: In general terms, the problem with your ruling is that it is contributing to an issue that has been absolutely crucial to this so-called peace process — the use of language to obscure political reality. The reality —

Lord Alderdice: Order. I must intervene — and this is not for myself. Members must understand that when a ruling is given, it is not susceptible to challenge on the Floor of the House. I believe that is why the proposition from Dr Paisley — that if such matters are to be considered, it should be by a Committee on Standards and Privileges away from the Floor of the House, where it can be done properly — is such a wise one.
However, I must make it clear — and this is not a question of wanting to defend myself — that for the propriety of the House and the dignity of the Chair challenges to the Speaker’s ruling are out of order on the Floor of the House. I have been more than generous in allowing such questions to be raised — perhaps more generous than I ought to have been.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Further to your rulings, I refer you to page 105 of Hansard of 16February and ask you to pursue, with the same vigour, comments by MrMcLaughlin about the Orange Order and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Member referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary as the armed wing of the Orange Order, engaged in the intimidation of Nationalists. I ask you to investigate evidence of criminal activity. Some Members are in the Orange Order, and in the public mind this could be seen to be directed at them.
They are very serious allegations of criminal activity, not only against Members of the House but also against members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. These are scurrilous and dangerous remarks, and I ask you to investigate them thoroughly.

Lord Alderdice: I have always made it clear that when Members ask me to look at matters I will look at them. However, my immediate response is that Members from the Gentleman’s own side of the House were recently accused of using unparliamentary language when they, by implication, made certain links between Sinn Féin and IRA. I made it clear that whatever one thought about such remarks, they were not unparliamentary and not a breach of privilege. The remarks referred to a group of people and not to individuals. The burden of my earlier ruling was that the precision that was created by the small number of people referred to made it almost specific.
I shall look at the matter that has been raised by the Member, but it seems to me that if we apply the rule that was applied in my previous ruling, it is likely that it was not an abuse of privilege or a breach of parliamentary language. One may disparage or agree with the remarks, but that is not the point at issue for me.

Mr Patrick Roche: Further to your ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Is it appropriate for me to comment on it as distinct from challenging it?

Lord Alderdice: If you are raising a point of order, that is what it is. To comment on my ruling is not acceptable because it is not a point of order.
The Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer has agreed that the Easter recess will be from the close of business on 1April until 19April, when the Assembly will resume. The summer recess will be from the close of business on 9July until 13September, on which date Committees will begin. Sittings of the House will resume on 20September.

Assembly: Shadow Commission Report

Lord Alderdice: We shall now proceed to the report from the Shadow Assembly Commission.
The Commission has had several meetings and has produced a report which has been circulated to Members. The Commission has asked one of its members, Mr Peter Robinson, to present the report by way of a statement similar to those that were made by Minister McFall and MinisterMurphy. MrRobinson will then answer questions.
Members who have questions in respect of the report should give their names to the Clerks in the usual way. Mr Robinson will respond to four or five questions at a time. There will then be a motion to approve the report. As Members will see from the Order Paper, the motion is jointly proposed by MrJohnFee and MrsEileenBell, who are also members of the Commission. There will be an opportunity to debate it in the usual way. The winding-up speeches will be followed by a vote. Thereafter there will be a debate on a proposition that the Senior Salaries Review Body report — not just the upcoming one but future SSRB reports — be accepted by the Assembly. This will be jointly proposed by MrRobertCoulter and MrFrancieMolloy. Again, the matter may be debated if the Assembly so wishes. After the winding-up speeches there will be a decision, and we will proceed with the rest of the business on the Order Paper.
For the sake of clarity I repeat that questions may be put to MrRobinson and that that will be followed by a debate on the report in the usual fashion. There is also the possibility of a debate on the acceptance of the upcoming and future SSRB reports.

Mr Peter Robinson: My task is to present to the Assembly the first report of the Shadow Commission covering the progress that has been made on its terms of reference. At the end of my statement, there will be an opportunity for questions. Members are under no compulsion to ask questions — I am not issuing a challenge. Two business motions will be moved later by other Commission members.
The presentation of this report establishes a precedent, as the Northern Ireland Act confers on the Commission, as a body corporate, the legal competence to make determinations on pensions, salaries and other matters. However, the Shadow Commission has resolved that it would not want to operate outside the will of the Assembly and sees this debate as part of an ongoing dialogue with the Assembly on substantial matters.
Members have had sight of the report, which was issued on time on Thursday. It is important to reflect on the work that has already been done and to alert Members to the many challenges that still need to be addressed in preparation for devolution. I should like to speak about the Shadow Commission’s background, how it has operated over the past five months, the context in which it has operated and on specific progress on its remit as tasked by the Assembly. This will lead me to the estimates for the next financial year, the work that is still to be progressed and the key recommendations that the Assembly is being asked to endorse.
The Northern Ireland Act makes provision for the establishment of a Commission that will be the corporate body responsible for the property, staff and services of the Assembly. On 18September, the Assembly established the Shadow Commission to assist, during the transitional period leading to devolution, in preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly.
The Shadow Commission has met 17times, sometimes for all-day meetings. It has also had meetings with the Assembly’s Board of Management, and all that represents a substantial personal investment in time by Commission members. In the past 10 days, the Shadow Commission spent two days at Westminster and afterwards had four separate meetings to progress the major issues that are contained in the report.
The Shadow Commission is not about individual Commissioners advancing party agendas; it is about representing and meeting the needs of this institution and its 108Members. I am pleased to report that the Shadow Commission has been faithful to that objective.
Early in the Shadow Commission’s deliberations, it became evident that the task of providing the necessary property, staff, and resources could be effectively achieved only by the staff of the Commission and Assembly working in close partnership. For that reason the Shadow Commission decided to restructure the Assembly Secretariat and establish a Board of Management comprising the heads of the five Assembly Directorates: Clerk Assistant, Editor of Debates, Keeper of the House, Director of Research and Information, and Director of Finance and Personnel.
Individual commissioners are linked to each of the Board of Management directors, and that has provided Members with a direct knowledge and insight into the development of the Assembly infrastructure.
I should like to pay a personal tribute to NigelCarson, the Deputy Clerk, who has made a massive contribution to the establishment of the Shadow Assembly. He was previously head of the Secretariat to the Northern Ireland Forum. As head of the team, Nigel carried the burden of responsibility for the arrangements to establish the Shadow Assembly and has continued to support the Commission in developing the facilities and resources that will be required for the appointed day.
Many weeks ago Nigel asked to return to the Northern Ireland Civil Service to take on a new challenge, and he is in the process of moving to do so. I am sure that I can speak for everyone in this Chamber in wishing him every success in his new post and wishing him well in his career in the public service. I know that he will invest the same level of commitment, enthusiasm and skill that was so evident during his time in Parliament Buildings.
Assembly Members often take decisions, both here and in Committees, and expect them to be implemented. We spend little time thinking of the effort that is expended in meeting our demands. Nigel, the Board of Management and the entire Assembly staff often have to work late into the evenings, early in the mornings and at weekends, to meet our timetable. Therefore it would be remiss of me not to mention all the Assembly staff who have worked tirelessly since July to ensure that Members have the right level and standard of support.
I hope that I speak on behalf of the Assembly when I say that we are grateful to our staff for their professionalism, willingness and patience. I also express our appreciation of the efforts of the Commission Clerk, Tom Evans. The heavy burden that he has to endure is made easier only by virtue of the kindly disposition, tolerance and patience of Commission members.
The Shadow Commission has now set up regular meetings with the Board of Management, and we are working closely with its members. We have been impressed by the commitment of the Assembly department heads, and I hope that they find the new arrangements beneficial.
One of the key challenges for the Shadow Commission is to understand the full extent of the requirements of the Assembly. To that end, we visited Westminster, and it proved to be a watershed in developing the Commission’s thinking on what needs to be put in place in readiness for devolution. The Shadow Commission also met members of the Scottish Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament, which was helpful in assuring the Commission that we have most of the building blocks in place. We also encouraged Assembly staff to visit the Dáil, Westminster and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, and such visits have provided further insights into the resources and structures that will be required.
No one in the Chamber needs to be reminded that we are participating in a Shadow Assembly, but Members may not be aware of the limitation that this places on the Shadow Commission. To illustrate the point, it may be helpful to reflect on the powers that will pass to the Commission on the appointed day. The Commission will be able to appoint staff and determine terms and conditions, including pension arrangements. It will be able to hold property, enter into contracts, and charge for goods and services. However, while we continue in shadow form we must depend upon the Department of Finance and Personnel to be our agent on financial, staffing and contractual issues, and upon the Department of the Environment for accommodation and other matters relating to this building.
Our transitional phase has been further complicated by the political uncertainty that has been an ever-present factor throughout the life of the Assembly. I shall give some examples of how the Shadow Commission has been constrained. The Clerk to the Assembly post, as Members will know, has never been filled. The Commission has agreed the job description, assessment criteria and recruitment methodology but has stopped short of going out to public advertisement. The same can be said for the Deputy Clerk, the Head of Administration and other Assembly posts. There is no political edge to my comments on this matter. It is for the Shadow Commission a straightforward practical consideration as to when it should advertise such posts.
Another area in which we have experienced difficulty is that of capital expenditure. The Shadow Commission has advanced plans to refurbish the press conference facilities and the basement area, but given the prevailing political uncertainty, it did not feel disposed to initiate a tendering process.
Probably the most frustrating aspect of operating in shadow form is that the Commission does not have its own dedicated budget and is constantly going cap in hand to the Department of Finance and Personnel for additional resources to fund priorities that were not included in the original estimates.
The Assembly should not conclude from my remarks that the Commission’s relationship with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of the Environment has been anything other than agreeable. My purpose in setting out the context is only to ensure that Members are clear about the environment in which the Assembly Commission has been operating.
Before moving to next year’s estimate, I should like to set out the progress that the Shadow Commission has made in meeting its terms of reference. On 14 September 1998 the Assembly asked the Shadow Commission to consider matters relevant to providing the Assembly with the property, staff and resources that are required for the Assembly’s purposes. We believed that the Assembly intended that we should accord a liberal interpretation to that remit. Accordingly, the Shadow Commission has performed a dual role, first in meeting the growing needs of the Shadow Assembly and secondly, projecting what would be required post-devolution.
The report goes into some detail on the work that the Shadow Commission has taken forward. Members can read that at their leisure but perhaps not for their leisure.
By the time the Shadow Commission first met, more than 130staff were employed. These are civil servants, seconded to the Assembly. The Shadow Commission set about finding out how many staff would be required to support a fully functioning Assembly. By visiting Westminster and talking to people in the Dáil, the Scottish and the Welsh offices, the Shadow Commission soon realised that the early staffing projections could never cope with the demands of a fully and professionally functioning parliamentary legislative Assembly.
The Shadow Commission asked the members of the Board of Management to reconsider their staffing requirements based on assumptions that we had arrived at following our contacts with other bodies. This identified major deficiencies in the original assessment.
No provision had been made for research. The original staffing assessment was based on 10departmental Committees and did not take account of the need for other Assembly Committees, the Commission itself or the House Committees. The procedural side of the Assembly was not even recognised in the original estimates.
A second but equally important issue for the Commission was how the additional staff should be recruited and what their status would be. After a great deal of deliberation, the Shadow Commission unanimously agreed that all recruitment would be based on the following principle:
"promotion of commitment to equality of opportunity and fair treatment in all its recruitment procedures;"
and
"a commitment to public advertisement for all its vacancies."
The Shadow Commission intends to establish a cadre of Assembly staff who feel part of the Assembly and are not seen as simply an offshoot of the Civil Service. The creation of the post of Doorkeepers, who fulfil such an important role, is a case in point. They were originally employed as Civil Service messengers, and the change of role has certainly increased their self-esteem and acknowledged their valuable service. The Shadow Commission is fully committed to going out to public advertisement for every post. However, during the transitional period, it will be necessary to fill some posts very quickly, and the Shadow Commission proposes to continue using temporary secondments from the Northern Ireland Civil Service as a fall-back arrangement.
The Assembly will become the most public body in NorthernIreland, and to ensure it is above reproach the Shadow Commission is putting in place a code of practice for equal opportunities and appropriate monitoring arrangements to ensure compliance with equality legislation. We do not yet have responsibility in this area, but we are already informing ourselves of the present complexion of our staff in equality terms in order to be the best placed to take the issue forward when devolution occurs.
The matter of the management of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate has featured in every meeting of the Shadow Commission. At early meetings we were conscious that Members were crowded into limited accommodation. We have made good progress on that front, expediting the Department of Finance and Personnel’s move out of Parliament Buildings and putting in train the necessary refurbishment of the building. All Members should now be adequately accommodated.
The Shadow Commission continues to plan for devolution. Offices have been set aside for Ministers and Chairmen, and two Committee Rooms have been wired for recording purposes. The Commission is presently considering how the procedural side of the Assembly can best be accommodated. We are looking into the creation of a Bills Office and a Business Office, recognising the need for those offices to be close to the Chamber.
The Shadow Commission has taken over the management of Parliament Buildings, and we now have a dedicated events co-ordination unit. The Commission has also spent a great deal of time in negotiation with the Secretary of State about the use of the Stormont Estate. Legally, the Secretary of State can decide how the Estate is used, but she has agreed to consult the Commission on any proposals, and this arrangement is working well.
Last Friday the Commission met the local Stormont residents’ group to take the views of its members on the development of the Estate, including its use as a concert venue. It was a useful meeting, and we expect to maintain contact with our neighbours and with other users of the Estate.
The Shadow Commission has been conscious of the need to develop services to address the Assembly’s requirements when it is fully operational. I shall refer briefly to three services in which the Commission has taken a particular interest. The first is the catering and hospitality services provided by Mount Charles. The original contract was negotiated by the Department of Finance and Personnel to meet its needs as a Government Department. The Shadow Commission has been working closely with Mount Charles to ensure that the requirements of the Assembly are being met, and I believe that the service has developed positively.
One of the Commission members, MrBobCoulter, although not specifically tasked to perform this onerous duty, has felt a personal obligation to do so. Frequently and in great measure, he satisfies himself on the standards of cuisine offered in each restaurant. In his spare time he checks the Coffee Lounge. He has set about this task with great energy, diligence and enthusiasm, and the Assembly is indebted to him for this selfless sacrifice.
Secondly, the provision of information technology will continue to be a high priority for the Shadow Commission. To date, Members have been provided with standard IT hardware and consumables, access to the Internet and modular based training. The Commission intends to provide a fully networked system offering access to the range of information systems that are currently available at Westminster.
Members will be pleased to know that we shall soon have POLIS in the Assembly. Before any Members rush to a safe house, I should explain that POLIS is the Parliamentary On-Line Information System, rather than a Belfast pronunciation of "police". This is a valuable asset at the fingertips of elected representatives. We hope also to have access to the European network.
The original estimates did not mention research services. The Shadow Commission realised that the Assembly could never function without access to high quality research, and Stephen Donnelly was seconded from the Northern Ireland Statistical Research Agency. He has examined the services that are available at Westminster and the proposals for Scotland and Wales and has recommended the establishment of a dedicated research unit in Parliament Buildings. That will require a significant number of staff, but the benefits of this type of facility have already been demonstrated. MrDonnelly recently produced some excellent research on the Port of Belfast for the Ad Hoc Committee, and he has been since been inundated with requests for other research.
Access to information and expert research are fundamental requirements for the professional operation of the Assembly. If Members are to do their jobs well, all the necessary advice and information must be at hand. Our output will suffer if we do not have quality material available, and it would be a false economy to skimp in this area.
The 1999-2000 estimate of £36 million has attracted some public attention and it is important that the Assembly understands the basis for this figure, particularly since the figure of £14·3 million was placed in the public domain by the Secretary of State when the Bill was going through the House of Commons. Indeed, that figure was mentioned here last week by the DeputyFirstMinister (Designate).
The £14·3 million estimate was prepared by the Department of Finance and Personnel in August1998 when it was difficult to project with any accuracy what the Assembly might require. The original estimate was devised by officials following the false scent of the deliberative Northern Ireland Forum, and it made little or no provision for the key functions of a legislative assembly.
Some of the additional elements that make up the £36 million estimate for 1999-2000 arise from the transfer of items of expenditure from other Government Departments to our own. Those additions are not therefore a net increase in the NorthernIreland block. Obvious examples of these transferred elements are the improvements, maintenance and repairs to this building and to part of the grounds for which we shall take responsibility.
Other additional elements are non-recurring and arise either as start-up costs or as part of the Assembly’s transitional programme, while others are at a higher level this year than may be expected in subsequent years. Training is a good example, but in the provision of IT equipment and furnishings, for instance, it is clear that much reduced demands may be expected in later years.
Moreover, we have costed the Assembly on the basis of its operating at full steam for the complete financial year. If that does not come about, or if it goes up through the gears gradually, there will be savings on the 12-month figures that we have produced.
I stress again that the Commission is not charged to make judgements on the framework of the Assembly. It is required clinically to cost the structure that has been designed. The Shadow Commission has urged the Assembly to commit itself to accepting the recommendation of the SeniorSalariesReviewBody on Members’ salaries and other costs. This would be a commitment to accept the SSRB recommendation unseen not just for the report that we expect to be published within the next week, but for the remainder of the lifetime of the Assembly. Subsequent Assemblies can, of course, decide whether to follow this practice.
I have had 20 years’ experience at Westminster, and I have watched Colleagues there grapple with this issue and I strongly urge Members not to indulge in the profanity of setting their own wages. We have the power to do so, but rectitude and probity suggest a different direction. At the commencement of the life of the Assembly we have an opportunity to leave it to an expert and qualified body to make a judgement on these matters.
The business motion would make acceptance of SSRB recommendations on salaries and office costs almost automatic. If Members have views on the level of their salaries, they can meet the SSRB to express them. If members of the public believe that Members are getting too much, they can contact the SSRB and make their case. Equally, but less likely, if members of the public feel that Members are not receiving sufficient return for their efforts, they can petition the SSRB, and if they present a convincing argument that sways the SSRB, I am sure that Members will obediently and reluctantly accept the outcome.
The Shadow Commission feels that it has made significant progress while recognising that there is much work yet to be done. Paragraph 33 of our report sets out the future priorities for that. I should like to flag up four that I feel are central to the development of the Assembly. First, we must secure the Assembly Vote from the Northern Ireland block. Secondly, we need to prepare a Pensions Bill and submit a formal motion on Members’ salaries. Thirdly, we have to appoint the Clerk to the Assembly, the Deputy Clerk and the Head of Administration. Fourthly, and urgently, we need to establish printing, publication and distribution arrangements that will meet the needs of the Assembly post-devolution.
I commend the report to the Assembly, and I am happy to take questions.

Lord Alderdice: I have not received any applications for questions. However, I have been asked to draw two points to Members’ attention. There are typographical errors in the Commission’s report. The first one is on page three, paragraph six, line six: "contacts" should read "contracts". The second is on page six, paragraph 11, the last line: "recurring costs" should read "non-recurring costs". The Clerk to the Commission is arranging for a corrigendum to be issued.

Mr Maurice Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You said that no names had been submitted. I have already submitted names.

Lord Alderdice: May I clarify that. The list of names that was submitted was headed "Report", indicating that they were the names of Members who wanted to speak in the debate on the report. If there has been some misunderstanding regarding that, it is simple to resolve, and I will proceed to accept those names as the names of Members who want to ask questions. Is that fair enough?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Yes.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I have two questions. The first is on the use of Parliament Buildings and its surroundings, and the second is on the future of the building itself. I refer to paragraphs 20 to 22. MrRobinson said that considerable concern had been expressed by residents around the Stormont Estate about past events.
The Commission has now established consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State about the use of the Estate. An amendment was tabled to have responsibility for the Estate conferred on the Commission. Has that been withdrawn? Is MrRobinson happy that the consultation is working? Will the final say rest with the Commission if a controversial application is made for the use of the grounds? If not, are there plans for these powers to be given to the Commission?
I am perturbed by the last sentence in paragraph 22 of the report, which refers to accommodation in Parliament Buildings:
"Ultimately the facilities at Parliament Buildings may not be able to accommodate the needs of the Assembly."
As a Member for East Belfast, I hope that it will be confirmed that the Commission has no intention of removing the function of the seat of government from this building.

Lord Alderdice: I propose, as when other statements have been made, to take four to five questions and then to ask for a response. Whips may have given me the names of those Members who wish to raise a matter. If they wish to ask questions at this point, they should advise me now.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat.
I welcome the consensus in the report. It is a positive development and shows that all parties can work together when required. The Commission’s report is about housekeeping matters in the Assembly and represents further movement towards transfer of powers.
Sinn Féin welcomes the placing of decisions on the rates of salary with the SSRB. We believe it makes for a more transparent and accountable system of government, and it is preferable to Assembly Members deciding their own pay.
Paragraph 17 of the report states
"The Shadow Commission will also be developing its own code of practice on equality of opportunity, similar to the arrangements operated by the … Civil Service and other public sector organisations."
It is widely recognised that the make-up of the Civil Service in the North of Ireland has presented its own problems. A 1997 report by the Fair Employment Commission, which profiled senior staff in that body, highlighted the unsatisfactory nature, ethos and policies of the Civil Service. Rather than develop a code of practice similar to that which is operated by the Civil Service, a code of practice should be developed in conjunction with the new and more independent Equality Commission that is to be created.
A necessary first step is the putting in place of monitoring arrangements that will ensure compliance with the equality legislation. Such evaluations must be strictly complied with, and all the equality constituents, as set out in the PAFT guidelines, must benefit from their implementation. Inequality in all its forms has been a source of contention, and only by complying strictly with the equality legislation, which ensures both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, will the endemic inequalities which have existed be eradicated.
The new dispensation, which the political process and the Assembly represents, gives each Member an opportunity to ensure that non-discriminatory employment practices are adopted. The Assembly, through this report, has the potential — [Interruption]

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. This is not a question but a statement of IRA/Sinn Féin’s intent. It is not for MrP Robinson to give an opinion on the Member’s statement. The Member should either ask a question or allow other Members to do so.

Lord Alderdice: The Member may have misunderstood the situation. This is an opportunity to ask questions for clarification of the report. If a Member wishes to make a wider comment on the report — and I think that MsO’Hagan was taking up a number of issues for comment — that is more properly done in the debate on the motion.

Sir Reg Empey: We are all indebted to the Commission for its work over the past few months. I am somewhat shocked at the scale of the estimate, considering that the figure that was in the public domain was substantially different. The scale of the discrepancy has surprised a number of Members. MrRobinson said that some costs that were included in the estimate are being incurred by other parts of the public service. For instance, Parliament Buildings, its upkeep and so on are costs that have to be borne by some Government Department in any event.
Can we have some indication of the total cost of the other recurring costs so we can find out the net additional estimate that has to be provided for? In pure arithmetical terms it seems to be in the region of £18 million or £19 million. That figure does not take into account the non-recurring costs and costs that are currently met through the Northern Ireland block, but under different hats. I should be very interested to know the current estimate of the net additional cost, and I should also like to be able to assess the impact of this expenditure on the Northern Ireland block. What has to be taken from the other services in order to provide for this expenditure?
Provision was made in the old Assembly for the library service, for instance, to provide a research facility for the wider Government service. I presume that such costs have already been provided for in other estimates. If so, have any other costs relating to the remnants of the old Assembly been built into the budget for the next financial year so that they can be recycled when the estimates are finally approved?

Mr Denis Haughey: Paragraphs 28 and 29 deal with the information and research resources that would be available to the Assembly. There is no mention of our gaining access to the vast research resources of the European Parliament and European Commission. Therefore I was pleased to hear MrRobinson refer to our gaining access to the European network, and I presume that that was what he meant. Have approaches been made to the European Commission and to the authorities of the European Parliament, and when is the Assembly likely to gain access to those resources?

Mr Peter Robinson: First, I shall respond to the questions relating to the use of the grounds at Parliament Buildings. The Initial Presiding Officer, in another capacity, tabled an amendment in the Houseof Lords which he would have been prepared to put to the vote had it not been for the fact that the Government were prepared to speak to him and to give certain undertakings. To date, those undertakings have been fulfilled. In every instance the NorthernIreland Office consults with the Assembly in the true sense of that word, allowing it, in effect, to determine issues relating to the grounds. I have found the working relationship very satisfactory, and I hope that it continues to be so.
After devolution the operation of the grounds of ParliamentBuildings, outside its immediate curtilage, will be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, so it comes closer to us. The Minister for the Environment will be answerable to the Assembly if there is any breakdown in that relationship.
Mr Sammy Wilson’s second question concerned the ability of these buildings to cope with future accommodation needs. Members will see from the report that we expect to need to increase the current staffing of 130 to about 400. That is a massive increase and would cause some accommodation difficulties within these premises. There would also be further staffing requirements for a functional Executive. There are already pressures in relation to the staff of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) because they cannot currently be housed elsewhere. There are considerable pressures on this building.
Nothing in the report was intended to convey the impression that the Commission recommended a move from Stormont. That would be a matter entirely for the Assembly. Again I emphasise that the Commission does not have any political axe to grind. It clinically provides simply for what the Assembly determines it requires. No decision has been taken to move from this building. It might be recognised, however, that some aspects of work could be moved from ParliamentBuildings to somewhere else. It might even be determined that some form of extension be considered, though I hope — and I see some Members grimacing — that that would be fairly far down the line.
Some Members asked about equality. The Northern Ireland Civil Service code of practice is based on the Fair Employment Commission’s recommendations. Of course, the FEC would consult widely, and with any equality body that were set up in terms of its code of practice, as indeed it would want to consult with the Assembly. Every Member has representation in one form or another on the Commission and would be kept informed of progress in that respect.
On behalf of the Commission I thank SirReginald Empey for his kind remarks. We also share his shock at the size of the estimate. Again — and this is not a matter of my washing my hands of it — the people who devised the structures are the architects. We are simply the quantity surveyors pricing the plans that others have drawn up. Those who are unhappy about the size of the estimate should speak to the architects, not to the quantity surveyors.
Of course, there are areas where there could be cuts, but only after we have been in operation for a full 12 months — perhaps more — will we be able properly to determine where it would be safe to make such cuts. There are certainly some areas in which it would be dangerous for us to start to skimp.
The Library, which was in existence before the Assembly, could not be described as a research-and-information facility. It has a reading room and a lending facility. I suspect that most Departments have sent their officials there to provide Ministers and others with the necessary research material. It is clearly necessary to put a proper research facility for Members in place. We have spoken to others about this, and it has become clear that we need a massive increase to the number of staff in that area. An enormous number of requests have been received by the Library’s research-and-information facility, not only from Members but from Departments, other elected bodies and the general public.
The easy answer to the question on the effect on the Northern Ireland block is arithmetical. It was originally determined that the cost would be £14·3million. Now we know that it will be £36·8million, so there is a shortfall of £22·5million. Some part of that, at least £3 million, will come from the Department of the Environment’s budget because it has the budget for the maintenance of Parliament Buildings. That will have to be taken into account by any future Executive and, particularly, by the Minister who will be responsible for the Department of Finance and Personnel.
MrHaughey asked about the Intranet, the Internet and the various networks that would be made available. Contacts have already been made with Westminster, the Dáil, the various bodies taking forward work on the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assemblies and the European Union. All the bodies that we have spoken to are willing to share information, and they are as keen to get access to what we have as we are to get access from them. I hope that there will be good working relationships. Certainly the contacts that have been made by our staff have been very promising.

Rev William McCrea: In response to MrEmpey’s question concerning costs Mr Robinson said that the members of the Commission were just the quantity surveyors. Who are the architects? Will he give us the name of the firm of architects? Would the word "Yes" come into the name? How does the cost of this Assembly compare with the costs of other parliaments and assemblies?
MrRobinson mentioned the Shadow Commission’s visit to Westminster. Can he confirm that the Member for Mid Ulster, FrancieMolloy of Sinn Féin, also went on that trip? Is that not at variance with the statement by his Colleague from West Tyrone, MrMcElduff, who, in the same week, condemned the decision by the House’s Gift Shop Committee to go to Westminster to see how similar facilities are organised? Can we conclude that MrMolloy is less concerned about school patrolmen than MrMcElduff?

Mr John Kelly: I welcome the report. Is this the correct time to make a statement on it?

Lord Alderdice: No. This stage is for questions only. You will have an opportunity to make a statement later.

Mr Patrick Roche: Like RevWilliamMcCrea, I should like to ask about the expense involved. If my calculations are correct, it seems that out of this sum of nearly £37million, we shall spend over £300,000 per Member. It is not clear what is included in this expenditure. We must look at the opportunity costs involved. This £36 million out of the block grant could be spent in other ways.
I agree that adequate research facilities should be available. Some £2 million has been set aside for that. However, it seems that, in addition, Members can use their expenses to pay research assistants and that money is available to each of the parties which can also be used for this purpose. That is in addition to the £2million. While it is a crucial area, much money will be floating around and we will not know how to assess whether it is being spent profitably.

Ms Jane Morrice: Page 14 of the report refers to areas for development, one of which is childcare provision. What are the plans for that? The Assembly will employ a large number of people and we should set an example to the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales in this regard. What are the plans for innovations such as homework clubs and créche facilities? The Women’s Coalition is disappointed that this matter has not been dealt with more urgently.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Robinson is to be congratulated on the clarity and humour with which he presented the report, but I should like to echo SirRegEmpey’s question about cost. The Northern Ireland electorate will be aghast at the sum of over £36 million which the Commission proposes to spend, regardless of how it is justified in the report.
May we have a ball-park figure, excluding non-recurring items such as start-up costs, and including estimates for unprovided-for expenditure, for what the Assembly will cost in an average, future year? The sum of £37 million represents nearly half the putative value being put on the assets of the port of Belfast. It seems an extraordinarily large amount, especially if it is to be incurred annually.
Has the Member any comment to make on the fact that when we add the £90million that will be needed to fund the 10 Departments and notwithstanding the promised savings, it will mean that about £120million will be taken out of the block grant to finance this place and its associated Committees? How can we justify that to the people of Northern Ireland? Many people will find that an outrageous sum, given what they are receiving in return.
I entirely accept Mr Robinson’s comment that he and the Commission are merely the quantity surveyors and not the architects, but sometimes it is the quantity surveyors who have to tell the architects that a programme is ludicrous. Perhaps if someone had applied the reasoning which should have been applied to the City Hospital building to what is proposed here, we would not find ourselves in the same position with a facility costing 10 times what it should cost.

Mr Peter Robinson: First, I shall deal with MrMcCrea’s question on the comparison with other Parliaments. It is difficult to make any comparison with the Parliaments that are being designed for other parts of the United Kingdom — the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly — because they are very much at the guessing stage, much the same as ourselves, although I think that we are probably very much in line with what is expected.
The big difference in one of the Assemblies is that it has — in my view unrealistically — assumed that Members will not require any hard copy of papers and will rely on electronic methods. It is very unlikely that Members will be satisfied with that in the long-term. The Westminster budget comes from several different Votes and amounts to about £350 million. That is for an operation on a much larger scale, but certain base facilities are required for any elected body. The annual expenditure of the Dáil — a figure which was given to Members recently — is about £40 million, but other costs were not included. For example, the building is, I think, dealt with by the Department of Public Works.
It is hard to get an exact comparison, but I agree with Mr McCartney that many people will be shocked by the scale of the expenditure. It is often the client and not the quantity surveyor who informs the architect about costs. More often than not the quantity surveyor is paid on costs and is usually the last person to reduce them, but the client can pull the architect back into line.
It is also difficult to give precise figures for non-recurrent costs. There are costs, for example, for equipment. There will be annunciation equipment throughout the building, and Members and staff already have information technology equipment in their offices. Such equipment does not need to be installed every year, but an amount must be set aside to allow for replacement. There will be a considerably reduced cost.
The estimates show that much of the cost relates to the servicing of Members. If, instead of being presented with a plan for an Assembly of 108 Members, I had been provided with one for an Assembly of half that number, the budget could probably have been reduced by about £10 million because Committees, salaries, other expenses and consequential expenditure such as IT would all have been reduced. Cost depends on the design. If there were fewer Departments, and therefore fewer Departmental Committees, clearly the cost would go down. That is an issue for the Assembly, and it is governed by the Belfast Agreement and the referendum on the agreement.
Mr Roche referred to the cost per Member. I think that my reference to the size of membership is pertinent to that. He particularly raised the matter of research facilities. Although a figure is included for research, there is no intention of going out tomorrow to employ all of the relevant staff and have them in place from day one. The sensible thing would be to let it grow according to demand. If it is not necessary — and it may not be — some money can be returned to the block grant. On the other hand, we have to look at the comparisons with other elected bodies. Members at Westminster have a larger office-costs allowance than Assembly Members and can employ research assistants. However, the Library in the House of Commons provides the facilities for that, and I suspect that it is so in the House of Lords also. There has always been that duplication.
Any research by the Library service, either in the Assembly or elsewhere, is available to all Members and can be accessed by them or by anyone outside. I make the point again that it is a provision rather than a firm commitment to go out tomorrow and spend that amount of money.
Jane Morrice raised the issue of childcare, which was considered at the CAPO meeting and by the Commission. I think that there is a willingness on the part of the Commission to address this issue. The mind of the Commission at this time is that this is best done through a voucher system. The pressure on Parliament Buildings might be a good reason for us to move in that direction. A survey will be going out to all Members, their staff and the Assembly staff. However, the Commission felt that this is not the right time to send out the survey. We should allow staff to get into place first because the results of the survey will greatly depend on the number of staff in the building. Those are costs which the Commission has put in, based on assumptions in relation to how much the building will be used by Members, their staff and Assembly staff. There seems to be a willingness in the Commission to make provision. How innovative it turns out to be may cause some disappointment, but I think that provision through a voucher system seems to be the most sensible way to proceed.

Mr Roy Beggs: I too am concerned that public funds should be used prudently. The money that is to be spent on the Assembly means that there will be less to spend on health and education. We are currently talking about taking £23 million away from the Northern Ireland block grant — something which has not been planned for.
Given that there has been no reduction in the number of Northern Ireland quangos — think of the savings that would flow from that — can the Member justify the proposal to have 400 civil servants (an additional 270) servicing the Assembly? How can he submit a report which sets aside £2million for salary increases and £1.8 million for office-costs allowance increases, given the fact that the Senior Salaries Review Body has not issued a report?

Mr John Dallat: I thank Mr Robinson for his very informed report. My question relates to access to Parliament Buildings. There has been a great deal of public interest in the Assembly since it began. Many people have visited the Assembly from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and beyond, and I congratulate the staff on their friendly and welcoming approach to visitors.
Paragraph 24 of the report refers to the introduction of a new pass system. Can I have an assurance that, as far as is possible, Parliament Buildings will remain open and accessible to as many people as are interested in coming here to find out about the work of the Assembly?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Who co-operated with MrCoulter and examined the alcoholic beverages in this House? Will that person’s name be made available to the Assembly? I should like to have a word with that person about temperance.
What steps are being taken to tighten security within the precincts of this building? May we have a breakdown of the costs of the Speaker’s Office, which are estimated at £215,000?

Mrs Iris Robinson: I too want to deal with the estimate of £36·8million for the financial year 1999-2000. MrRobinson touched on part of my question when he was addressing MrMcCartney’s query, but I will ask it anyway. What changes could be made to the structure of the Assembly or in the way it operates to reduce this figure?

John Taylor: I congratulate MrRobinson and his fellow commissioners on a first-class report. Much of it had to be based on speculation as to what will happen next year, and that is a difficult thing to do when one is presenting a report of this nature.
My first question concerns the overall cost of £36million. At first glance one begins to suspect that we are heading towards the extravagance of the European Parliament. However, MrRobinson said that part of this sum is a transfer of costs from other Departments into the budget for the Assembly. Some people outside the Assembly will try to knock it and present it in a negative manner. The explanation which has been given, and is generally understood within the House, may not be generally understood by the public and, indeed, may be mischievously misrepresented by some journalists.
Does the Commission intend to issue a press release to summarise this report and especially to explain how the figure of £36million has emerged?
My second question is about the post office, which was not mentioned. The reopening of the post office in this building is a great asset and a great facility for everyone who works here, and I try to support it. As well as postal services, it provides facilities for television licences, passports and child benefit. A notice was circulated to Members about the provision of this facility. Has the Assembly staff been alerted to its existence, and is there any further way we can promote its activities? If such an office is not viable, it will close.
My third question concerns catering. I noticed in the report that the original catering contract was between MountCharles and the Department of Finance and Personnel. MrRobinson suggested that MrCoulter had been sampling the available menus. Looking at him, I can see the result — they must be good. The meals are good in all the restaurants.
Is the Commission renegotiating a contract with MountCharles? When one brings parties here in the evening the price of food is very high indeed — £12 per head for a fork supper of sandwiches, mushroom pates, sausage rolls and coffee is extreme. This needs to be renegotiated so that all Members may bring guests from their constituencies and from organisations.

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Beggs asked about staffing. Each of the heads of departments had to make a determination based on what we now know will be the requirements of the Assembly. It was a fairly straightforward mechanical exercise. As I said in answer to a previous question, there is no intention to fill all those posts immediately. We will allow the Assembly to grow. If extra staff are required, they will be put in place. If they are not, there will be a saving for the NorthernIreland block.
The worst position would be if we did not have the provision in our estimates — if, after the Assembly had worked for some time, more staff were required but funds were not available. The public would think less of us if, in the middle of the financial year, we had to go cap in hand for more money. They might think more of us if, halfway through the financial year, we could give money back because we did not need it. I hope that that will be the case.
12.00
We expect the SSRB report to be published within the next week, and as far as the Commission’s fortune-telling ability in relation to that report is concerned, I have to say that we have heard some whispers, but it would be irresponsible to comment on them. I suspect that Members would not thank the Commission if the SSRB were to recommend an increase in Members’ salaries without there being any money in the estimates to pay for it. I would not like to remain on the Commission in those circumstances.
We have made what we believe to be a sensible estimation, based on our understanding of the SSRB’s thinking. We could be wrong. Perhaps it will recommend more than our estimate, perhaps less. As it is a provision only and not actual expenditure, we can deal with that when it happens.
Reference was made to the accessibility of Parliament Buildings. We are paying particular attention to the needs of the disabled, both the visually and the physically impaired. As regards the general public gaining access, we must marry the need for openness within the Assembly — and I do not think that we should be placing undue restrictions, other than those which accommodation dictates — with the security difficulties, which DrPaisley has pointed out.
In recent sittings Members commented on the fact that they had seen members of the public straying around various floors of the building. One Member told me that a group of three schoolchildren peeped into his room. We need to have a specified route to ensure that people adhere to the security requirements.
The Keeper of the House has drawn the Commission’s attention to the need for a new security pass system. The present security passes are deficient on at least two grounds. One is that they are easily counterfeited, and the intention is to have security passes which are more like credit cards to replace the current laminated ones. They would be similar to the identification cards used at Westminster in that they would immediately identify the individual by way of category apart from the photographic identification. A staff member’s pass would have lettering, which would enable the Doorkeepers to recognise immediately that that person was allowed access to particular areas.
Such a system would also cut out the need for several security passes — some members of staff need different passes to get into the building and to specific car parks. One card would be able to deal with all of that. It would not be as easy to counterfeit such a card, and it would be easier for the Doorkeepers to identify the person using it.
I welcome MrsIrisRobinson’s concern about costs and expenses. [Laughter] I will savour this moment for a long time.
She asks what kind of changes could be made to reduce costs. Obviously, a reduction in the number of Members would reduce costs, as would a reduction in the number of Committees. Providing fewer facilities and paying less in salaries would reduce costs. Those are the areas that we must look at. If we can do with fewer back-up staff, that will also reduce costs. It will be a case of finding the proper balance over the next 12 months, and estimates for future years will be much more informed because we will have had some experience of actual costs upon which to make our determination.
Mr Taylor referred to attempts to get a handle on the start-up costs of the non-recurring expenditure. The press, of course, has available to it the whole of the report and today’s deliberations, but he is quite right to say that the press may see some juicier headlines for selling newspapers. All that we can do is to set out the basis upon which we have arrived at these figures.
The figure of £36 million is a substantial amount, and it has an impact upon other spending programmes. The Commission obviously had this in mind when it reduced — I emphasise "reduced" — the figure to £36 million.
Staff throughout the building have been notified of the existence of a post office in the Building. The news of its opening is on the notice boards. I hope that we will also have a gift shop. Both those facilities will be on the line of route for visitors to the Building and there should be some passing trade from the general public.
I cannot give my hon and reverend Friend the name of the person who is monitoring the use of the bar. It may surprise some Members to know that the amount of money from the Press Bar and the Members’ Bar shows, to the shame of Members, that the press use their facilities far less than do Members. I must add that the Members are not using the bar that much either. The Commission will have to look at those issues in terms of the size of the facilities and the numbers of staff.
I can also tell Mr Taylor that at the last Commission meeting there was a determination that there should be a House Committee to deal with catering matters. The Mount Charles contract has one and one half years to run. I do not wish to enter into debate about the Mount Charles contractual arrangements — he might be surprised if he were to hear them — but I can say that at present the only way to reduce costs would be by subsidy, and I do not think that the public or the Assembly would welcome that.

Mr Edwin Poots: I welcome the Commission’s intention to promote equality of opportunity and fair treatment in all recruitment practices, and its commitment to advertise publicly all vacancies. What is the religious breakdown of the current staff, and is it in line with the population of Northern Ireland?

Mr Cedric Wilson: Perhaps Mr Robinson could deal with an issue which is not mentioned in the summary of estimated expenditure for 1999-2000. Can he assure us that the new super-quango — the Civic Forum headed by Sir George Quigley — will not have a cost implication for the Assembly? Has the Commission looked at that issue?

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Poots raises the issue of the religious breakdown of staff. Of course, when we deal with equality we deal with not only religious and political affiliations but also with the gender issue.
The religious breakdown, in terms of the present composition of the Assembly Secretariat, is remarkably close to the balance in Northern Ireland as a whole. That is surprising for two reasons. First, we are dealing with people who have been seconded from the Civil Service. That has largely been a case of people putting their hands up and saying "I want to work there", and one might have expected one section of the community to be more enthusiastic than the other.
Perhaps the counterbalance to that is that because we are situated in east Belfast one might have expected the composition to reflect the surrounding area. However, the balance is to the religious affiliations of the community as a whole. We have some concern on the gender issue. The proportion of males working for the Assembly is 55·6%, and the proportion of females is 44·4%. That adds up to 100% for I do not think that there are any other categories. It is, of course, out of proportion to the breakdown in the community as a whole, which is about 49% male and 51% female We shall have to pay some attention to that issue.
I can assure MrC Wilson that there is nothing in our estimates for the Civic Forum. I am assuming that another Government Department — the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers — will cover the expenses of the Civic Forum. If they are relying on the Assembly budget to cover it, they are in trouble.

Lord Alderdice: As there are no further questions, we will move to the next item of business. I express the appreciation of the Assembly to MrPRobinson for his presentation of the report and for his comprehensive answers to questions. I also express my thanks to the other members of the Commission and to the staff.
I expect that Members will have been somewhat surprised at what has been going on in the background to prepare for the full and proper functioning of the Assembly. That is now more apparent with the presentation of this report, and Members will agree that members of the Commission and the staff have been working very hard, albeit in the background, on many issues.
Motion made:
This Assembly approves the report prepared by the Shadow Assembly Commission. — [Mr Fee and Mrs E Bell]

Mr John Fee: The Assembly has heard something of the context in which the Shadow Commission has worked over the past five months. Before I speak about some of the assumptions behind the report, there are two observations about our situation which I would like to bring to the attention of the Assembly.
First, we heard of the National Assembly Advisory Group in Wales. It was established in December1997 and reported in August1998. It had eight months in which to analyse the needs of a consultative Assembly which would have no legislative power. Similarly, we heard of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. It was established in November1997 and reported in December last. In 13months it conducted a very wide consultative exercise to form its view.
Neither of those bodies had to manage facilities, provide services, manage staff, supervise contracts and so on. The Shadow Commission to the New Northern Ireland Assembly has had these functions on top of the responsibility to determine future staffing, services, accommodation, property and resource needs of a legislative Assembly following devolution.
The fact that we have produced this report in only five months and have been able to put in place the initial facilities and services to allow Members to function, albeit in shadow mode, is a testament to the hard work of all members of staff. It is evidence of a high level of commitment and loyalty to the task of bringing this institution fully to life and a manifestation of the intense activity of the Shadow Commission, its members and its staff.
I endorse Mr P Robinson’s commendation of the enormous efforts of TomEvans, the Clerk to the Commission, of the members of the Board of Management and of the officials of the Central Personnel Group who have given us an enormous amount of time and valued advice. I have a particular word of thanks for the staff and advisers of the Initial Presiding Officer, who have been involved in our processes in great detail from day one. We have reached this point in a fraction of the time taken in Wales and Scotland, and established the core departments of the House. That is a positive achievement.
A second incidental and remarkable fact of which the Assembly should be aware, and of which any Member who regularly consults the minutes of our meetings which are lodged in the Library will be aware — the fact that no Member has consulted those minutes we accept as a vote of confidence in our collective ability to fulfil our function — is that over the past five months, on the many matters that have required decision, judgement or direction, the Commission has had recourse to a vote on only one occasion.
That shows the collaborative and consensual nature of our decision-making and our commitment, as MrRobinson said, to step outside narrow party political agendas and constraints to ensure that every Member is given the best opportunity to represent his constituents and, conversely, that constituents have the highest possible level of access to, and information about, the new Assembly and its work, its functions, its services, its procedures and its decisions. The Commission is getting to grips with all its responsibilities, and I am confident that that will continue.
We have talked in some detail about the context in which the Shadow Commission has operated. I should like to point to some of the assumptions that have had to be made as events have progressed over the past few months, because they go directly to the future basis on which our estimation of a budget for the Assembly has been founded. Some of these assumptions may seem obvious, and some already underpin the way in which we operate at the moment. However, ultimately it will be for the Assembly to decide the nature and character of the legislature that it wishes to create.
One of the important assumptions is that the Assembly will obviously wish to be as open, transparent, accessible and accountable as possible. Following directly from that is the need to introduce a high standard of information and communication systems. The creation of a public information service is central to that assumption. The events co-ordination unit, with the management system for visitors, tours and students, is an inevitable consequence, as is the necessity of computerising for every Member, every service and every facility of the Assembly.
The demand for openness and accessibility requires the creation of Internet and website facilities, and the demands of efficiency require the creation of intranet facilities and links to other institutions such as Westminster, Dáil Éireann, Europe, and so on. These are all included in the report. We feel that these services are essential if the Assembly is to be an open and accountable body, a twenty-first-century regional Parliament, and we ask for the House’s endorsement of that view.
A second assumption is that over a lengthy period of time, there will continue to be significant change. With the creation of 10 new Government Departments, North/South institutions, British/Irish institutions, a Civic Forum, Assembly Committees and new systems of information, communication, research and administration, the assumption has to be that for the foreseeable future, ongoing training will be necessary for staff and Members alike. A sizeable budget for training across all disciplines has been included in the report.
A further assumption, which is reflected in the sizeable stationery and publishing costs of the Assembly, is the requirement to publish Assembly papers and Hansard on a daily basis. That is not a simple assumption. In the Welsh proposals, it is recommended that the verbatim record of the proceedings of their House be made available, in some unspecified format, within three days. I understand that in the Scottish proposals there is limited provision for paper-based publishing of their parliamentary documents, but everything will be done electronically.
Our report has assumed that there must be complete provision for both electronic and hard-paper copies of the relevant documentation and that, in the case of Hansard, the Order Paper, motions, amendments, and so on, there should be the capacity for the overnight production of documents. Of course, this is again based on the assumption that the Assembly will decide to operate on a 9am to 5pm or 10am to 6pm schedule. It is my belief that it is possible to operate efficiently, cost-effectively and professionally using normal business hours. The budget that has been developed will be substantially greater if the Assembly decides to operate a Westminster-style schedule of work or any system with regular late sittings.
For one reason or another, a range of other assumptions have influenced the report. At a straightforward level we have assumed that Committees of the House will wish to meet in other locations in Northern Ireland. We have assumed that the North/South Council, the Council of the Isles and other bodies that we will be involved in will meet elsewhere, and we have budgeted for Committee travel, staff travel and hospitality.
More importantly, we have assumed that a high quality, highly responsive Library and research facility must be created to service Members so that a professional, modern, efficient system of accountable democracy can be developed. We have made provision for the creation of entirely new systems of information, accounting, personnel management, security and administration. There is, I suppose, an expectation that the Assembly Commission itself will publish details of its estimates, budgets, minutes, proceedings, decisions and accounts.
There are three specific recommendations in the report. The first relates to the overall budget for the running of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I propose that this recommendation be accepted. It represents the assessment of the Shadow Commission and the Board of Management with the support of the Department of Finance and Personnel, and it has been arrived at with comparative analyses of the House of Commons, the Dáil, the Consultative Group in Scotland and the Advisory Group in Wales. It is a high price but an accurate reflection of the price of representative democracy.
The second recommendation refers to our own value and worth as Assembly Members, at least in relation to our pay and pension rights. It would set an important precedent if we were to accept this recommendation. However, that is the subject of a further business motion, and I shall say no more at this stage.
The third specific recommendation is that the Assembly commit itself to a process of open recruitment for all members of staff. That is crucial to the future well-being of this legislature. It will open up employment opportunities to everyone and will allow a process of recruitment based on merit to be established. That, I hope, will contribute to our having a vibrant and talented team of people working here, with their loyalties owing to this institution, serving the needs of Members, and by implication, the entire community.
That is by no means to say that we do not already have a vibrant and talented team of people here. I believe we have and that many of them will want to stay. But it does not change the fact that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is too small a pool from which to draw, given that the private and voluntary and community sectors have not been tapped and that there is enormous talent available at local government level and within non-departmental bodies or quangos.
I have probably spoken too long. I recommend that the Assembly accept the report in its entirety.

Mrs Eileen Bell: My Colleague did speak too long, but I have given him the extra minutes and I shall not speak for the allotted time. In his excellent presentation Mr Robinson and my Colleague, Mr Fee, outlined most of the points that people will have queries about, so I simply want to endorse their comments about the efforts and the commitment shown by you Sir, as Chairman of the Shadow Commission, and the Assembly staff, who worked long and diligently to produce this report. That reflects the work that has been ongoing from our arrival here in June and from the setting up of the Shadow Commission. I hope that Members appreciate what has been achieved in this transitional period.
I think that we have successfully carried out our remit, as far as possible, in preparing for the effective functioning of the Assembly. The report outlines the steps that have already been taken to ensure that we have sufficient staff to service the Assembly procedures and practices from June until now. We are now preparing for the recruitment of staff after the appointed day.
The Shadow Commission is indebted to the Department of Finance and Personnel staff who have completed a mighty job for us all since we first arrived here, tired and weary from the agreement negotiations, promoting — or otherwise — the referendum and electioneering to obtain an Assembly seat.
Those of us who were in the Northern Ireland Forum were glad to see a number of support staff from there, and I hope that they will continue to work with us. I also hope that Members will confirm our agreement to the guiding principles for future recruitment. MrRobinson sufficiently addressed Members’ queries and concerns about recruitment and equality of opportunity.
We have some way to go in the process to appoint the Clerk to the Assembly, but, given the hours of work and research by the Commission and Central Personnel Group of the Department of Finance and Personnel, I am confident that we will make a successful and worthy appointment to this vital post. We shall also give priority to the staffing of the 10 Departments and of any other Committees that are deemed necessary to run the devolved Assembly effectively.
Accommodation for Members and their staff was also one of our priorities, and, for the most part, work has been completed although there are some problems to be resolved as detailed in paragraph 22. The report details the wide remit of this body, and I assure colleagues that every shadow Commission member contributed in full to the various issues that had to be dealt with, from the furnishing of the Chamber, to catering services, the provision of the IT equipment, and the development of adequate library and research facilities. We have been a housekeeping committee, but that has been vital to the progression and development of the Assembly.
We are still looking into the feasibility of crèche and gym facilities. I am sorry that MsJaneMorrice is not here to hear my comments on those. I am obviously concerned about them and, as MrPRobinson has said, all members of the Commission are keen to look into the development of some sort of crèche facility, voucher or otherwise, and gym facilities about which MrHutchinson is interested. There are important issues relating to the establishment of printing, publication and distribution facilities sufficient for a working Assembly and its ancillary Committees. As MrRobinson said, we hope to report again soon on those issues.
We have already made enquiries about costs, and surveys will be carried out on the potential use of crèche and gym facilities. We have had meetings with the Stationery Office about the provision of printing and distribution, and will embark on the next stage of the necessary process on that. I should like to record our recognition and appreciation of the work of the Hansard staff.
We visited the crèche in Brussels, and we were impressed with it and have taken on board some suggestions. At Westminster, the voucher system was suggested to us for a number of reasons, and we will report back on that. Be assured that the gym, crèche and the publication facilities will be priorities in the near future.
Our programme for future action is outlined in paragraph 32, and shows the ongoing schedule of basic but important topics that will facilitate the efficient transition from shadow to full devolution. The Commission, as a corporate body after the appointed day, will continue to develop Assembly procedures and services. Those will give Members the necessary support to carry out their duties in full parliamentary style. That will improve representative democracy, which in turn will improve Northern Ireland generally so that we can build a constructive future for our children.
I ask Members to support the report and endorse the key recommendations.
The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.30pm until 2.00pm.

Mr Alban Maginness: May I join the queue waiting to give MrPRobinson plaudits for his excellent presentation of the Commission’s report. It is a comprehensive document and should be welcomed by all Members. It is also indicative of the Commission’s hard work under your Chairmanship, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Many Members were unaware of that work, which indicates a degree of commitment to what is a rather dull and, perhaps, unglamorous aspect of the Assembly. All members of the Commission should be congratulated on their work.
I share the concerns about the estimated cost of the Assembly. Some £36 million is a large sum — more than was anticipated. But democratic government can be an expensive business, and the creation of a new democratic institution is bound to create new costs. However, the value of such an institution would be inestimable if it were to bring about peace and reconciliation, in which case it would be money well spent.
I know that all parties will share the view that the Assembly will have to look at its expenditure and consider economies where they are necessary. The SDLP recognises that the projected cost of the Assembly is considerable, and it will act responsibly in relation to that.
The Commission’s recommendation to allow the Senior Salaries Review Body to set the level of Members’ remuneration is the proper way to approach this issue, and we should welcome it. The thorny business of Members’ remuneration should be taken out of the hands of the Assembly; the computation of their salaries and expenses should be decided by an independent body such as the Senior Salaries Review Body. The SDLP welcomes that and supports this recommendation. However, it will be a supreme act of faith on the part of the Assembly if Members blindly accept that body’s recommendations.
SDLP Members would like to put on record our thanks to the Assembly staff who have worked in a courteous, warm, friendly and efficient way. They have given us great service over the past few months, and I know that Members from other parties will join me in congratulating them on their work. I pay particular tribute to NigelCarson for his work in relation to the House. He has shown leadership and, in a dedicated and efficient manner, has helped the House to establish itself.
Professionalism should be the hallmark of the Assembly and of our contributions to its work. The professionalism of the staff should also be reflected in the work of all Members individually and collectively. Therefore in discharging our duties as public representatives we welcome the services that are provided by staff members and their high degree of professionalism.
It is important for Assembly Members to obtain the best possible research facilities, and I welcome the Shadow Commission’s steps in this regard. It is important that we educate ourselves in terms of those facilities, and it is particularly important for the Assembly to provide Members, as it has done, with hi-tech facilities and services to carry out their work in a professional manner. I welcome the steps that have been taken, and I look forward to the improved services that this report foreshadows.
It is essential that we move quickly to the appointment of the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, head of administration and other staff for the Assembly. It is important for the discharge of our duties and for the creation of that professionalism that I referred to earlier.
The SDLP welcomes the Shadow Commission’s commitment to public advertisement and its commitment to an equal opportunities policy and to a code of practice. That reflects the values of the Assembly, which was established to create fair play and opportunity for all in our community. If we were found wanting in this respect it would be highly damaging to the Assembly. Therefore the SDLP supports the Shadow Commission’s recommendation.
One small point which was not addressed in the report, and I am not in any way quibbling, is the availability of medical services in the Assembly. I refer not so much to ongoing medical services but to emergency services. There is a first-aid facility in the House — and that is to be welcomed — but for an institution which will employ over 300people plus 108Assembly Members it is important that a proper emergency system is available if required. I hope that the Shadow Commission will look at this matter in some detail in the near future. I know that it has looked at it in broad terms, and I am aware that you, MrInitial Presiding Officer, convened a preliminary meeting on it. I hope that this work will continue.
We have a wonderful opportunity to establish a new and exciting political forum for all our people in a new ultra-modern Assembly that is fit to serve the needs of the twenty-firstcentury. The report is a substantial step forward in that process. I say "well done" to the Shadow Commission. Let us thank its members for all their work.

Mr Sammy Wilson: As we did not have the opportunity during questions this morning, I should now like to congratulate the Shadow Commission on its report. I am sure that Members will note that those Committees which are driven by Members seem to be able to issue their reports on time. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate), who have consistently produced their reports at the last minute. Perhaps in future the efficiency of Member-driven Committees could be emulated by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate).
Secondly — I will finish my licking in a minute or two — I congratulate my Colleague PeterRobinson and the SDLP and Alliance Party Members on the presentation of the report. I wish to raise a couple of issues which I feel are worthy of note.
As we heard this morning, the media are already jumping all over the report in relation to the costs of running the Assembly. That is to be expected because it is the kind of issue that makes a good headline with which the public can easily identify. Politicians are always good value for such speculation and activity.
However, I cannot understand why Members have feigned horror at the figures in the report. MrRoyBeggs said that they would mean fewer classrooms and fewer hospital beds. Only last week — less than seven days ago — he voted for the very structures that have led to some of the costs that are outlined in the report. He took that action despite the fact that for days beforehand he had said that he would have nothing to do with them. It is one thing for the press to write about the cost of the Assembly, and another for those who voted for the structures that have given rise to these costs to come here and hold up their hands in horror.
PeterRobinson said this morning that if the architects of this establishment want this type of structure they cannot complain about the cost. My party has made it very clear that it will seek to keep the cost of democracy to a minimum. I hope that is true of all parties in the Assembly. I hope that we can have some democracy to start with and that when democratic structures are in place we will seek to keep costs to a minimum.

Mr Denis Haughey: The structures to which MrWilson seems to refer and which were voted upon last week, the Departments and so on, are not included in the costings.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I take issue with the Member on that. When we set up 10 Departments, there will be 10 Ministers. There are salary implications there, and the 10 Committees will have cost implications. The back-up for those Committees will have staffing implications, and I could go on. The report has implications for what we decided last week.

Mr Peter Robinson: While the Member is right to say that an additional burden will be created by the number of Committees, Committee Chairmen and back-up staff, the additional costs relating to Ministerial appointments will be borne by their Departments.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I thank my Colleague for that helpful intervention.
It is imperative that the Assembly should have nothing to do with the setting of Members’ salaries and office costs allowances. It is right to leave this matter in the hands of an independent body.
I spoke earlier about the use of this building and the surrounding grounds. On each sitting day, it has been gratifying to see the number of people on guided tours around the building. It is good that this historic place is now accessible to people. We should record our gratitude to Mr Victor Bull, who has now left the events co-ordination section, and to his successor, Mr Dermot MacGreevy. Many members of the parties that I have brought here to be shown round by Mr Bull commented on his enthusiasm and love for the building. That enthusiasm rubbed off on those visitors. He did a magnificent job pioneering this work, and I have no doubt, having seen his enthusiasm, that MrMacGreevy will provide Members with the same standard of service.
I do have some concerns about the use of the grounds. There has been considerable controversy about this, as you are aware, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I do not think that all the suggestions made by the Secretary of State for the use of the grounds would have been of benefit to this place. Some of her proposals were inappropriate. I trust that the Commission will continue its consultation with the Department. As MrRobinson has said, the Minister with responsibility for the Department of the Environment will be involved in making decisions on the use of the building and the grounds. We are not sure who that Minister will be, or how sympathetic he or she will be. For that reason I would prefer the Assembly to have the final say on this matter.
My final point relates to a matter that was raised earlier today, but to which my Colleague did not respond. I should like to hammer this point home. It was significant that the Commission visited Westminster. It is also significant that Mr Molloy of Sinn Féin was quite happy to visit the hated "Mother of Parliaments" to learn from that institution.
It is also interesting that — to use a term much used in the Assembly by Davy Ervine — Sinn Féin was unable to "choreograph" its party line on this matter. One Sinn Féin Member was on his way to Westminster, while another was condemning an Assembly Committee for wasting public money on doing the same thing. That Member — MrMcElduff — suggested that he had nothing to learn from the House of Commons. It is worthy of note that Sinn Féin seems unable to get its act together on the issue.

Mr John Kelly: A Chathaoirligh, may I at the outset congratulate Mr Peter Robinson and the other members of the Shadow Commission on a comprehensive report. His address was also comprehensive. I also wish to acknowledge a Chathaoirligh the Assembly staff, who at all times treat Members with the utmost courtesy.
In terms of employment and equality, Sinn Féin’s position is that equality is for all — Protestant and Catholic, men and women, black and white. We should not like to see equality being compartmentalised into either race or religion. We are pleased that the report states clearly that employment in this building will be open to all.
It is interesting to reflect on David Trimble’s address last year to the Unionist Party conference, when he said that the agreement gives a chance to do what Craig and Carson did. Thank God that will not happen. Stormont, the Government Departments and the policies developed here should reflect the new reality. Not only do they need to accept that there will be Catholics about the place, but also Nationalists and Republicans, disabled people, ethnic minorities and women.
Sinn Féin will continue to insist, a Chathaoirligh, that equality is central to the whole process of government including, crucially, decisions on Government expenditure. We shall also continue to make government accessible to all the equality constituencies which have been excluded, by discrimination, from government in the past.
A Chathaoirligh, Sinn Féin does not want to dismantle the ethos of the building; we want to add to it. Its ethos should reflect all our diverse cultures, and in that regard we hope that the Irish language will find its rightful place in this Assembly, both in terms of its use and of the availability of translation.
I do not want to add much — the report is good and comprehensive. Sinn Féin agrees with its coverage of the issues.

Mr Robert McCartney: I hope that what I have to say will not bring forth, in the words of AssemblymanErvine, "a cacophony of protest". Stormont is on a hill — some people might even think that it is something of an ivory tower. There is no doubt that when one arrives here there is an atmosphere of isolation. It would be a great mistake on the part of the Assembly to use that isolation to distance itself from the electorate and from the people who sent us here.
It is clear that many people from both the Unionist and Nationalist persuasions, will view the amount of money which has been assessed by the Commission as necessary for the future running of this place, with a degree of near horror. It seems that people have been conditioned, perhaps erroneously, to accept a cost of £14million — a figure that caused some critical comment. The figure has sprung from £14 million to £36·78 million — almost £37 million — and there is at least a hint that it might ultimately exceed £40 million.
This will cause many people in Northern Ireland to view all the proceedings here with some suspicion, particularly as it is rumoured that the independent salaries board proposes to increase salaries from £30,000 to £37,500, and the amount for constituency purposes from £30,000 to £32,000. That is a total increase from about £60,000 to about £70,000.
It is prudent and wise to depute any future increases to an independent body. For the Assembly to retain control over awarding increases to Members would have been too much for the electorate to bear. The public would simply not wear that.
Mr Robinson made a valid point when he described himself and his Commission as being like the quantity surveyors who were not responsible for the design of the institution which this money was required to service and, in some circumstances, to erect. Let us look at the architecture.
There are 108 Assembly persons. The United Kingdom mainland, excluding Scotland and Wales, has approximately 52·5 million souls, yet the United Kingdom has only six times the number of elected representatives that are to service a population of 1·5 million. There are nearly 4million people in Wales yet it is to get between 70 and 75 Members to look after the interests of considerably more than twice the population of Northern Ireland. Scotland has a population of 5·5 million. It will have perhaps 126Members, and it will have greater powers, such as the power to raise taxes, than the Northern Ireland Assembly.
If one were to extrapolate the representation that the architect should properly have allowed for Northern Ireland, we might have about 60 or 70Members at most. The architecture was necessary, not because the people of Northern Ireland require 108 Members, but because the political policies and the agenda of the British Government required that there should be 108Members in order to service their own political objectives.
There is a similar situation with the Ministries. When I first spoke to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) about the criteria for deciding the number of Ministries, I asked if the decision would be based on the number relevant to the efficient and economic good government of Northern Ireland, or whether the criterion was to be the maximum number to enable, for political purposes but not for good government purposes, the maximum number of Ministers to be included. There was the additional creation of junior Ministries, none of which was adumbrated in any way in the agreement.
We presently have £40million probably allotted to the running of this place, and another £90 million is required to service 10Ministries —a total of £130 million. Where will the £130 million come from? It will come from the block grant or it will be raised, as some suggest, by perhaps a 10% or 12% increase on the regional rate. In other words, we are having to pay for institutions of government designed by other people for their purposes and not directly related to the efficient and economic good government of Northern Ireland.
The Commission, which has done an excellent job, having regard to the architectural brief presented to it, has simply highlighted the real cost of government for Northern Ireland. That being the case, Members will have to show the public that they are giving good value for money for, in Northern Ireland terms, Members are getting very good money indeed.
I have some minor comments. AlbanMaginness suggested that we need some sort of medical service in case an unfortunate Assembly Member, due to strain, overwork or perhaps even the excitement of the place, requires urgent medical attention. We have a main hospital about five minutes away and an Assembly Member would need to be very excited, very overstressed or very overworked before needing services of such emergency as to require some sort of medical unit here.
Mr Roche said that £2million was being allotted to research whereas, encapsulated in the £30,000, soon to become £32,500, allotted to Members for constituency work, there is a built-in allowance for research that is required or thought necessary by the individual Member. Indeed, I am told that some Members are employing researchers with a salary of £18,000 per annum. In those circumstances one would have to seriously question whether that Member would require, as MrRoche quite properly pointed out, an additional £2million spent on central research. Some money certainly needs to be available for central research, but whether we can afford to be as generous as has been suggested in the Commission’s report is another matter.
I endorse entirely the sentiment that real equality of treatment, whether for Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Nationalist, even Dissenter, should be available for everyone. That is a worthy objective. No democrat should be excluded from government. However, someone who is inextricably linked with an organisation that has demonstrated antipathy to any form of democracy should certainly be excluded.
There have been some comments about Craig and Carson. I suggest that those Members who have little knowledge of Unionist history should read SirEdward Carson’s parting valediction in which he laid down the leadership of the Unionist party. It would certainly open their eyes to what Carson felt about the Catholic population and how they should be treated — it would be worthy of being inscribed in any equality agenda.

Mr Denis Haughey: I also welcome the report and recognise the hard work that has gone into it. On behalf of myself and my party, I thank the members of the Shadow Commission for their service to the House in preparing this report.
In paragraph14 of the report the Commission said that it realised quite early in its deliberations
"the enormity of the task of establishing the infrastructure required for the purpose of the Assembly."
Now that the report is before us, the House understands the enormity of that task. As well as thanking the members of the Commission, we owe a debt to all the Assembly staff for their long hours and dedication. My work with the Standing Orders Committee puts me in a better position than most to understand this.
I welcome in particular the provisions of paragraph16, including the
"commitment to equality of opportunity and fair treatment in all its recruitment practices".
It is very welcome to see that so explicitly stated.
I welcome the commitment to the public advertisement of all vacancies, and particularly the reference in paragraph 16 to
"the establishment of a discrete cadre of Assembly staff which is not just an off-shoot of the NICS".
That is vital. We must reach out to the community and enlist and engage its vast resources of talent and ability. We should develop a different and independent approach to the problems of government from that which has become a traditional ethos in the Civil Service.
I have some concern about paragraph 20 which refers to the distinction between the responsibilities of the Commission and those of the Department of the Environment in respect of the Stormont Estate. It is very important that we have a clear and explicit dividing line between the two separate areas of responsibility.
It would be unfortunate if the Assembly were to allow circumstances to develop in which it found itself obligated to the discretion of a particular Department or Minister. We need to ensure that the Assembly’s responsibility for its business, establishment and areas of operation remains discrete and distinct from the responsibilities of any Department or Minister.
In my question to MrRobinson I referred to the provisions of paragraphs 25 to 29. BobMcCartney and other Members are perfectly correct to say that the House would not be fulfilling its remit if it did not avail itself of electronic access to the vast resources of information and research which are available to it from the various legislatures with which we have a relationship. As I said earlier, the European Commission and the European Parliament have vast resources of information and research available to Members, and it is comforting and pleasing to know that we will be tapping into them.
Like other Members, my Colleagues and I were concerned at the enormous increase from £14 million to £37million. MrRobinson’s and MrFee’s explanations set the context for that increase. The Commission ought to arrange for the fullest briefing for the media and for them to have a breakdown of these costs. Some journalists seem to have a predisposition for investigating minutely the remunerations and the expenses of public representatives. It is very important that the public does not misunderstand the size and dimension of these costs, and people should be fully briefed on how they have arisen. SammyWilson said that not all of these costs are additional. Some result from the transfer of certain areas of responsibility from Departments to the Assembly and do not therefore mean extra public expenditure.
Members will be aware of their responsibilities, given the cost of this exercise in democracy, to provide value for money and to ensure that this elected legislature enhances life and brings about economic and social advancement in the community. If that happens it will be seen in retrospect that the cost incurred was money well spent on a new approach to democracy which enhanced the community and reinvigorated its economy.
I commend this report to the House.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Chathaoirligh, thank you for the opportunity to lend my support to the report and to commend it to the Assembly. It is a joint and agreed report, and an important indicator of how things can be done if Members get on with the work in hand. Members of the Commission worked well together in a businesslike manner in taking on the responsibility that the Assembly vested in them.
The Commission set out very clearly from its inception that it would adhere to the fair employment regulations and publicise all available jobs. Those are important criteria which we need to maintain throughout the Assembly. The provision for new staffing means that we will recruit publicly for all the positions that may come about over the next 12months, or whatever time is necessary to get everything in place. The current target figure is 400, and that will add to the cost of running the Assembly.
We must try to make this establishment family-friendly so that people feel free to come and express their opinions. We must also make provision for child care. A crèche facility in this Building may not be the best means of doing that. Would one wish to take a child to the basement of this Building? Is that the best place to provide a crèche? One of the questions that we heard in Westminster was "Would you bring a child into the centre of London if childcare facilities were provided for Members there?"
There has to be further consultation with all Members and their staff to ensure that we provide the best facilities. Perhaps the provision of such facilities on a voucher basis, as in Westminster, is the best way forward. Members will need to make us aware of future arrangements that they may need for childcare.
The Commission has been in shadow form, but it has been a good working example for the Assembly. Work has been done, but more requires to be done. As a member of Sinn Féin, I emphasise our commitment to making the Assembly work. People seek commitments, and this is one example of Sinn Féin’s commitment. There are many other issues that we need to deal with, and as they arise the Commission will deal with them.
There has been much talk about costs. There is nothing to stop any Member refusing to take salary increases or to take a salary at all. Those who have jobs elsewhere and other earnings could look at that, although perhaps that is not the best way to go about it. It is easy for people to rush out of here to make cheap political points on radio or in the press, against their opponents or even their party or former party members. We need to make it clear that it is up to the Assembly to decide for the future. We should do that collectively here, and should not run outside to do it.
We are looking at the cost of the new Committees. There could be as many as 20 such Committees and if Members did not get the opportunity to monitor all those Committees, they would rightly complain. We cannot provide that opportunity without the necessary finance, and we need to take on that responsibility, which runs right across the board.
Mr Wilson and Mr McCrea asked about London. I did travel to London, and I was very happy to accompany Mr Peter Robinson and the other members of the Commission. We had a good working relationship over the two days. That was important. We can all learn, and we can learn from travel, so I make no apology for going to London. What my colleagues do in other situations is a matter for them. One of the lessons that people can learn from Sinn Féin in various ways is that the party is not a monolith. We do not just take directions from the top irrespective of our feelings. It is important to look at the issue in a broader sense.
On the Friday evening in London, it became clear that within the estimates there was not enough cover for the work that will be involved in the Assembly over the next few years. It was clear that we had to review those estimates, and we arranged a meeting for the Saturday. All the heads of Departments came here on the Saturday morning to work out the revised budgets. I pay tribute to the Clerk, the Initial Presiding Officer and his staff, and all the heads of Departments who worked throughout that weekend to ensure that by Monday morning we had revised budgets. It was clearly a team effort between the Assembly, the Commission and the Departments to ensure realistic figures to present the Assembly with a programme for the future.
Members of the Shadow Commission were asked to present the Assembly with a report. It is clear that when they knew the project and had a target, civil servants, Commission members and staff all worked together to ensure that it was met. It is an example for the future because if the members of the Commission can work together, there is no reason why the members of an Executive cannot work together in the same way. I ask the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) to move speedily to set up the Executive, so that we can again show a commitment to make structures work.
The Commission took very difficult decisions, and I again pay tribute to the Initial Presiding Officer for guiding us to those difficult decisions in difficult times. No doubt more difficult decisions will have to be taken, but I have no doubt that that will be done.
The costs need to be looked at again, more along the lines of the transfer of those costs rather than just adding them to the other costs. When we start to dismantle the quangos, there will be squealing from different quarters, but we can transfer that finance into the Departments. If we could end the Drumcree crisis we could save thousands of pounds over the next year. I hope that those with influence in that quarter will try to resolve that situation because the money saved could be used in hospitals and schools and for other services rather than be wasted.
I say especially to Members opposite that there is a danger sometimes that people cannot recognise change or commitment when they are staring them in the face. I ask Members to judge us by our commitment, our workload and our participation and not to get hung up on old clichés of the past. We can and should move forward, and today is an example of us moving forward. Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I join in the praise for MrPRobinson and the other members of the Shadow Commission for their excellent work in presenting the report to the House. Mr Robinson helped us all to understand their relationship to the Assembly and what he described as the relationship between quantity surveyor and architect.
My thoughts on that are that the client — in this case the electorate in NorthernIreland — did not get what the architect promised. When the chief architects in the company, Mallon and Trimble, were laying out their specifications and plans, the senior partner, Mr Trimble, promised the electorate that the steelwork for this new edifice at Stormont would be based on decommissioned weapons. There is little hope of that now, and one wonders what we are to build upon. Will it be empty promises or MrTaylor’s assertion that he would be prepared to accept a pledge from Gen de Chastelain and we do not need metal or steelwork on the site?
We need a new set of plans, new foundations and lasting structures that will be built on democracy rather than on the nonsense that has been presented to us to date.
I am concerned about the spiralling cost that is starting to unfold before the eyes of Members, and indeed the public. In addition to the £36 million that Mr Robinson laid out this morning, there is, as MrSammy Wilson has said, the additional burden of costs resulting from the Ministries. That adds £90million to the £36 million.
I was not aware until Mr Robinson answered my question earlier that a substantial additional amount is required by the First and Deputy First Ministers to service their office within the Assembly. As part of that, a large amount will be spent on the new Civic Forum. I have not been told exactly how much that will cost or of who will foot the bill. The one thing that is certain is that the money will all come out of the block grant. The idea is that there are little pockets of money coming from different sources. At the end of the day there will be concern and the public will ask questions.
As Mr Robinson has said, we are tasked with ensuring that, within the remit of the shadow Commission, the money is spent wisely. I entirely agree with the comments by my colleague Mr Roche that perhaps savings could be made in the area of research. I assure Mr McCartney that when it comes to my party, the money that is spent on research will be spent wisely. We will not do as some Members of Parliament do and squander money on second-rate advice and second-rate research. We shall go for the very best.

Mr Robert McCartney: My wife is not getting any of it, anyway.

Mr Cedric Wilson: So they tell me, Bob. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank Members for their praise of the work which has been done on their behalf. From the Initial Presiding Officer, who chaired our meetings, to Members and staff, it was a great team effort. We all worked together, and the result is the report.
My colleague and I will sum up and, let us hope, address some concerns. I will leave the contentious issue of costs and the equality issue to Mr Fee. I agree with AlbanMaginness that cost is a major issue, but as he said, the creation of a new democratic institution will involve new costs. We need the solid infrastructure that was mentioned, and if we do not have an infrastructure that works with the people who put us here, there is no point in going on.
We are discussing not only Members’ salaries and facilities but the whole remit that is laid out in the report — from accommodation and the costs of the Chamber to what we eat when we are not in here, and what we do when we are in our offices. We need all the facilities. Much money is involved but I hope that it will provide best value. That will be borne out over the next four years.
As Members have said, we must also bear in mind that after devolution there will be no need for the quangos that people deride so much. There will be no need for the five education and library boards and the health boards and so on. That is another issue to be looked at. The block grant will be a totally different entity. Before running down what we have tried painfully to build up, people should take those things into account.
I am glad that most Members have agreed with the Senior Salaries Review Board motion to be moved by RevRobertCoulter and Mr Molloy. It is essential that we are not seen to be deciding our own salaries.
"Fair play and opportunity for all" is the comment that was made, I think. We have tried to do that as much as possible with openness and accountability in all our discussions about present staff and the staff that we hope to get after devolution.
We are also looking into the provision of medical facilities, in answer to Alban’s query. MrMcCartney can joke about it, but I think it is in quite bad taste. Someone could be taken ill here, including himself, and need instant medical treatment — maybe that is just wishful thinking on some people’s part. I want to be very sure that we do have some sort of medical provision in Parliament Buildings for the number of staff that we will have in the future.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr S Wilson’s remarks about tourists. We should have an open and accessible building. Again, the Commission has tried to have the facilities here to do that. I and other Members from North Down, indeed, from all areas, have had parties of school pupils and pensioner groups here every day — some of them are here at the moment — and I know that they have all enjoyed that facility. We always say to the people who come up here to visit us is that it is their building. I hope that is what we will continue to portray.
We are not here because we put ourselves here; we are here because the people put us here. Therefore we must make facilities, we must have the amount of money that it takes to keep this building open and accessible to everyone. The ethos of the building should be kept. I think it was David Trimble who said
"a pluralist Government for a pluralist people".
The building should be open for all people to visit. It is not an ivory tower and never should be.
My colleague will be talking about equality. I will just mention that we did give it due consideration. It is a very important issue and it will form the basis of any appointments or facilities. Everyone is due equal facilities. We have had serious discussions about that and intend to consider it further.
Some of MrMcCartney’s remarks were political. In reply, I say that the Shadow Commission is an objective, functional body. We work on the realistic figures of 108Members and 10Departments. We do not go into the political analysis but try to provide what will be required. Over the next fouryears constituents can see whether we have given best value. If they think that we have spent too much they can use their vote as they see fit. The figures that we had were projections.

Mr Oliver Gibson: There may be some disquiet among civil servants about how they will be treated after devolution. Will all the jobs be advertised or will some staff be automatically transferred because of their present attachment?

Mrs Eileen Bell: As was mentioned this morning, since we started in shadow mode staff have been seconded to the Assembly. Only when we become a fully corporate body will we have the power to recruit. That is when our open recruitment policy will begin and when positions in the Assembly will be open to all. As MrPeter Robinson has said, we have had a review to monitor our current staff. If there is an imbalance we shall look at it.
Denis Haughey is right when he says that there has to be a clear and explicit dividing line about the estate.
We have clearly shown that we are aware of that and that we will look at it. We will have negotiations with the relevant section of the incoming Department of the Environment. We have to make sure that we know what we are responsible for.
In reply to Francie Molloy may I say that although we did not comment on the crèche earlier, the crèche and gym facilities are just as important as any others, and we are looking at them. When everything has been rationalised, a survey will be done, and we will inform Members of the situation in due course.
I ask Members to accept the report.

Mr John Fee: I should like to explain why the Commission members are sitting where they are and why Peter Robinson, when he presented the report this morning, sat at the top table and took questions there. The Commission members have agreed explicitly that they will not follow party political agendas in any sense and that they will, as a body, be responsible to each and every Member. While they are acting as commissioners, they must be seen as independent of party structures. That means that when a Commission report is being discussed, they will not sit on their party Benches. That will reinforce the role that the members see for themselves and their relationship with the other members of the Commission.
It will not be possible to deal with the issues that have been raised. First, there is the proposed scale of investment in the research facility. About £700,000 of the £1·8million is non-recurring capital expenditure and relates to items such as personal computers for staff and Members, the computerisation of Members’ constituency offices — a recommendation in the SSRB report — the provision of an annunciator system in the building and the teletext-type service to keep Members up to date with what is happening in the Chamber, wherever they are within this complex.
That is all part of the research and information budget, and these services will be made available in all the Departments of the House. This is not an excessive amount of money. When the Assembly is up and running and begins to legislate, the demands from Members’ constituency offices and researchers may strain the research facilities, and we may be under-resourced in this area.
Members asked about the openness and ethos of the House. We are conscientiously recommending that, in future, vacancies here be filled by open advertisement. There was nothing in the original estimates to cover the cost of advertising for a large number of staff, so we have had to build into the budget, from scratch, all the consequential costs of creating a legislature.
Other items that were not included in the original £14 million estimate had to be built into the costs. For example, there was no provision for salaries and wages. The original costs were based on the costs of the Forum, whose members were unsalaried. In addition, there was no provision for office cost allowances, and so 108 times £30,000 had to be included in the budget that we presented.
There was no significant provision for running the Committees, for research, for the publication and stationery demands of the new Assembly, or for pensions. Therefore enormous amounts of essential costs had to be built into the budget which were not included originally and which do not necessarily represent new finance to be taken out of the Northern Ireland block. Many of these costs, such as our salaries, our office costs, allowances and capital expenditure within this building, are currently being incurred, and will simply transfer in the Vote to the Commission’s budget.
Over the past five or six months, each member of the Commission has worked hard and effectively and has taken his responsibility seriously — even when that may have been uncomfortable. If Commission members were required to go to London or anywhere else, no matter how inconvenient that was, they did their duty without complaint and outside the glare of publicity.
Many questions have yet to be addressed, but we have made provision for the Assembly to be able to address them effectively and efficiently in the future. The issues of electronic voting, the electronic tabling of motions and Bills and the like have yet to be addressed, but we are putting in place the infrastructure that will allow Members to go down that route if they wish. The provision of information to schools, libraries, isolated rural communities, local government and business has yet to be addressed. We have not worked out the detail of how accessible our systems will be, but we have put the hardware in place to ensure that the Assembly will be an open, transparent, accessible and accountable body.
Much of the cost of the infrastructure, in terms of information technology, will be non-recurring; the recurring element will be in staff training and servicing the computer systems. We shall publish the details of our estimates when we go through the negotiating procedure to secure funds from the Northern Ireland block. We now need the Assembly’s approval to continue this work and hope that it will adopt this motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
This Assembly approves the report prepared by the Shadow Assembly Commission.

Assembly: Recommendations of Senior Salaries Review Body

Motion made:
That this Assembly will accept the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body in respect of the salaries and allowances for Ministers and Members. — [RevRobertCoulter and Mr Molloy]

Rev Robert Coulter: I move the motion in the full knowledge that I am asking the Assembly to agree to a document that neither Members nor I have seen — the Senior Salaries Review Body’s report. At first glance I seem to be asking Members to commit themselves to a set of recommendations that are not before them. They cannot debate the contents or evaluate the ramifications for themselves and their support staff. However, I shall endeavour to explain the reasons for pursuing this somewhat strange line of action.
Members should embrace an important principle at the very beginning of our service in the Assembly. We should be careful to commit ourselves to probity and propriety when dealing with public funds. To do otherwise would be to leave ourselves vulnerable to the accusation of carelessness and impropriety, if not of greed or maladministration.
It is with that in mind that the Commission unanimously agreed to recommend that we accept the decisions of an independent body on the matter of the salaries and allowances for Ministers and Members. No one can then accuse Members of feathering their own nests. We will be accepting a principle of integrity and openness in dealing with public funds that will be the guiding star and a defensive bulwark for all our actions, both corporate and personal.
Someone may ask whether the decision to accept the SSRB recommendation is a decision for all time. We cannot make decisions for any Assembly beyond this present one. The decision will be for this year, and it will be an ongoing commitment for the present membership of the Assembly until the election for the next Assembly. If there are areas of responsibility for which the SSRB has not made any recommendation, it is in the remit of the Commission, under the Act, to consider making provision for office holders. The Commission is determined to consider that.
I bring Members back to the core of the matter. We must be seen by the public to be the dependable custodians of the wealth that they pay in taxes and to dispense that wealth with integrity and equity and in a thoroughly professional manner. For those reasons I ask Members to support the motion and avoid being labelled as "self-made fat cats", even though the physical contours of some of us might justify that designation.
When the Commission asked me to research the food in the House, it required someone to go out front. Members thought that I had more years experience of sampling food than any of the rest and that I was more out front than any of the other members. I used to look after my figure, but since undertaking this research project, I am now looking over it.
When we move the next motion I may suggest an all-party group called the "curved-tie club". If I thought that no one else would take it on, I would propose myself for the chairmanship of that group. Many people from all parties could qualify for membership of that club.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Chathaoirligh, I second the motion that the Assembly accepts the recommendations of the SSRB. This is the best time to take this decision because we do not know what will be in that report. People expect a rise in salaries, but, regardless of the amount of the rise, it is important that Members do not resort to debating their salaries. It is important that we are open and above board. We do not want to be like the chiefs of the health boards and trusts who awarded themselves salary rises of 30% when nurses do not even have the amount of those rises as salaries.
It is important that the Assembly sets a clear precedent. We can speak only for this Assembly, but we should put down a clear marker that we want it to be open and transparent, that we want to be above board in our dealings. That is why I accept that we should accept the recommendations of the SSRB in advance of its report. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir.

Mr David Ford: This might make me sound a little bit like JimWells, but I should like to repeat what has been said earlier and express my thanks to the Chairman and the other members of the Commission. I thought that I knew something of the work that was being done in the Commission from the very abbreviated reports that I was receiving from EileenBell. It was not until I saw the pile of paper that she had last week and the report that was prepared, which seemed to be about one-fifth of the amount of paper that she was going through, that I realised exactly how much had been done. We clearly owe a considerable debt to the six members of the Commission for the way in which they have worked together to produce an excellent report.
Much of the debate has been about costs, and our salaries are clearly part of that. I was contacted over the weekend by a journalist who asked me about the size of the estimate. I was deeply concerned that Peter Robinson might be ending up in some kind of a stew and that he would get the blame for the costs, so I did my best to say that wherever the blame may lie in terms of the initial, completely inadequate estimates, we need to make it clear that we support the Commission in its work to produce a realistic plan for the way that this Assembly will operate. It will certainly be a costly exercise, but the concept of democracy and of bringing peace to this society is beyond price — except perhaps in respect of the issue that we are discussing.
The thought that we might find ourselves responsible for setting our own salaries is quite horrifying. On behalf of my party colleagues, I fully endorse the recommendation that we should accept the SSRB report, whatever it is, on an ongoing annual basis. Comments will clearly be inevitable in the wider society. There will be all kinds of flak.
I gather that ‘Talk Back’, the programme that people either love or love to hate, has already given us a run. It was unfortunate that some Members chose to go to ‘Talk Back’ before they spoke in the House, but perhaps that is inevitable, given the way that some people are carrying on. We certainly need to make it clear that, as Assembly Members, we view ourselves as public servants and, like most of the rest of the public service, will take whatever salary we are determined as being worth and will not set our own salaries or expenses, and will not put ourselves in the problems that some at Westminster get into. In that respect, we are very much part of a partnership with the staff who work with us here and with all those who have contributed to this move towards democracy.
It is clear from the report that there is a great deal to be done in future. I look forward to seeing if the Commission can maintain its high standards when it looks at other matters. The issues of a crèche, IT, research, accommodation and staffing were outlined in the debate and are all serious issues that have to be dealt with.
There will be a major problem with staffing, and we have heard of the necessity for openness. I fully endorse the requirement to proceed by way of public advertisement. I have a question that might be slightly out of order at this stage, but I am not quite sure of the appropriate person to speak for the Commission. Can I have an assurance that those people who are currently seconded to us will remain? Whether they be Clerks or Doorkeepers, they have provided a tremendous service so far, and I hope that, while their numbers are increased in the proper open fashion, we will be able to continue to depend on them as long as they so wish.

Lord Alderdice: It is for the members of the Commission who are dealing with the motion to reply to that question, if they feel able to do so, during the winding-up speeches.

Mr Derek Hussey: Like other Members, I agree that it is right and proper for this issue to be settled by an independent body, namely, the Senior Salaries Review Body.
There was a comment about the number of Members in the Chamber. I remind the House that, in the discussions that led to the agreement, my party fought strongly for a 90-member House and not one of 108. Unfortunately ours was the only Unionist voice in support of that. I wish to express my concern at the initial total —

Mr David Ervine: The Member should be reminded that the sixth seat in each constituency might have benefited the Ulster Unionist Party most of all. Certainly the smaller parties were elected on third-in, fourth-in or fifth-in, which, of course, left the Ulster Unionists to take the sixth seat in most cases.

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Member concede that that is factually inaccurate? In most cases the sixth seat went to Nationalist parties. The Ulster Unionist Party did not benefit greatly from the sixth seat.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank MrWeir and MrErvine for their interventions. The question that was posed by MrErvine has been answered by MrWeir.
The original estimate for this body was £14million. It seems strange that whoever arrived at that figure forgot about the provision for wages and salaries and perhaps about a few other figures. I can understand minor oversights which might have altered the figure of £14 million slightly, but it was at least naïve if not actually irresponsible to suggest that figure of £14 million in the first place. I have checked this with MrRobinson, and I understand that that figure was announced before the block grant was calculated.
In her submission on the block grant, the Secretary of State may have found herself working with a figure of £14million for this body. Whoever calculated that figure has done the Assembly a great disservice, as has the Secretary of State, who accepted it. It would not be out of place for us to lobby at Westminster to have this situation redressed, rather than having to make good that figure from allocations elsewhere in the block grant, as Mr Beggs has pointed out.

Rev Robert Coulter: I should like to make it clear that civil servants on secondment to the Assembly as support staff will remain in post. Only when they move on will their posts be advertised.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly will accept the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body in respect of the salaries and allowances for Ministers and Members.

Assembly: All-Party Groups

Motion made:
That officers in all-party Assembly groups and all-party groups whose membership is open to members of more than one party be required to register the names of the officers of the group and the source and extent of any benefits, financial or in kind, from outside sources which they may enjoy, together with any other relevant gainful occupation of any staff which they may have; and that where a public relations agency provides the assistance the ultimate client should be named. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Lord Alderdice: Members will note that the burden of this motion bears some resemblance to that of the previous motion. Members, whether in groups consisting solely of Members or in conjunction with staff or researchers from outside the Assembly, may wish to form all-party interest groups.
In recent times, concern has been expressed that these groups may include in their membership or receive assistance from lobby groups or other interest groups from a relevant field. Therefore it seemed wise, in the interests of probity and propriety, to draw up regulations to ensure that there could be all-party Assembly groups consisting only of Assembly Members, and all-party groups consisting of Members and others. There should be clear regulations for the establishment of a register of such groups, and this will ensure that there is no impropriety.
I put a proposal to the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer that Members be allowed to form all-party interest groups. After some discussion, this was agreed by the Committee, and that is the proposal that is before the House. It allows Members to establish groups to discuss specific matters, either in all-party Assembly groups consisting entirely of Assembly Members, or in all-party groups which may include outside bodies or individuals.
A copy of the rules relating to such groups has been available to CAPO for some time and has been discussed by it. If agreed, the rules will be reissued to all Members of the Assembly tomorrow so that Members will be aware of them and can use the requisite forms to make applications.
All-party groups may exist in a wide range of issues. Given the number of interest groups, lobby organisations, unions and so on which have come to the Assembly and have been sponsored by Members in recent months to explain their concerns, I have no doubt that Members will be interested in establishing such groups.
The basic qualification for the establishment of groups is that they must be open to all Members to join, if they so wish. When first formed, there must be a minimum number of Assembly Members and the founder members must come from all three political designations in the Assembly. It would not be appropriate to ensure that every party was represented in every group. Some parties might not wish to participate or might not have representatives who wish to participate. However, all parties must be able to join at any time and all three political designations must have representation among the founder members of any such groups.
The purpose of the business motion is to ensure complete probity in relation to the financing of any all-party groups. It will ensure complete financial transparency — or at least it will go as far as one can in setting down regulations to ensure that. It will also help to eliminate misunderstandings or, at worst, actual conflicts of interest.
I advise the Assembly that in conjunction with the motion, documentation has been prepared in respect of a register of Members’ interests and that the Committee on Standing Orders is processing this matter, which will be brought to the Assembly in the near future. Therefore the further issue of Members’ interests in general being registered will be properly dealt with when the new Standing Orders are in place.

Mr John Dallat: I support the motion and particularly welcome the news that there will be a Members’ register to record external financial interests. However, I hope that Members will not confine their entries to purely pecuniary interests, and I encourage Members to include membership of all organisations to which they belong, particularly if those bodies are highly influential and have the capacity to influence decision-making. I am, of course, referring to legal organisations.
Members have a moral responsibility to be entirely open in their associations. We are funded by taxpayers and are expected to represent everyone without bias or preference. Being a member of a society which does not operate open membership, or is at least perceived to be semi-secret or clouded in secrecy, could raise questions for Members.
It would be quite improper for me to single out any particular organisation which has in the past been perceived to have exercised enormous control over people’s lives through its operation as a secret, semi-secret or oath-bound society. However, such organisations exist, and some Members may belong to them. Association may be by degree.
This Assembly has the potential to be one of the most democratic and politically inclusive institutions in the free world. However, to ensure that its work is not overshadowed by claims of influence from external organisations that are not open and not democratic, it is important that anyone holding membership of such bodies should declare them in the proposed register. I urge that this be done on a voluntary basis.

Lord Alderdice: I intervene on a point of order. It is important that Members should not become confused. It seems to me that the matters which the Member is addressing are matters relating to the Register of Members’ Interests, which is currently under consideration by the Committee on Standing Orders and which will be the subject of a future debate.
My understanding — and Members must not take it as any more than that — is that the Register will refer to non-pecuniary as well as to pecuniary interests. I should not want Members to think that that is in some way related to this motion and this debate, which is about all-party interest groups and influence in that regard.
For the sake of clarity, I urge the Member, to restrict himself to all-party groups and all-party interest groups and to keep his perfectly legitimate questions on the Register of Members’ Interests for the debate on that matter.

Mr John Dallat: I do not wish to confuse the Assembly in any way. I totally support the motion and was simply taking the opportunity to influence the rules on the Register. I particularly welcome the fact that non-pecuniary interests will be listed. That is important and in the interests of every Member. I welcome the news you have just given us.

Mr Alex Maskey: Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I wish to clarify a point. You outlined the terms of reference earlier, and we have gone through those with CAPO on a number of occasions. However, I see that the words
"all-party groups whose membership is open to members of more than one party"
are still included in the motion. I am curious about that. It is confusing.

Lord Alderdice: Will you please clarify that for me? I did not understand the question.

Mr Alex Maskey: Why have the words
"open to members of more than one party"
been included in the business motion when it is clear from the terms of reference for all of these groups that they have to be open to all parties? It is an unnecessary addition. It is a small technical point.

Lord Alderdice: The reason the phrase has been included is that the model which was taken for this approach was the Neill Committee. This is the form of words which was used by that Committee. This was included specifically because it was a matter that the Committee had gone through. It has to be the case — and I emphasise this to take it beyond peradventure — that all these groups must be open to all parties. At their foundation the groups must have a specified number of members. The required number is laid down in the regulations, but it can be changed if it is found necessary to increase or decrease the number from all three designations.
Many details in the regulations are not included in the motion. The purpose of the motion is to set out what is required in broad terms. I apologise if that is not clear.

Mr Roy Beggs: On a point of information, MrPresiding Officer. Can you clarify the rules and regulations which will surround these all-party groups? We have a business motion, but we have not had detailed discussions about the regulations that will control them. Will the regulations be coming before the Assembly?

Lord Alderdice: It is not normal practice to take a point of information in this context as I had already sat down. However, generous to a fault as I am, I will respond to your question. Unfortunately the response may not be the one that you want.
The detailed guidance notes and regulations have been available and have been a matter of discussion in the various party groups since before Christmas. It is not necessary for them to be brought to the Assembly for approval. The purpose of the business motion is to enable us to agree to follow the regulations that were outstanding and had been available for some time. The matter of the Register of Members’ Interests will be laid down in Standing Orders.
I hope that Members will understand — from the Commission report debated earlier, for example —that there is a series of regulations which we have had to lay down for the proper conduct of business in the Chamber.
One example is the matter of sponsorship of events by Members and how many people can be brought as visitors at any one time. In a previous sitting Dr Paisley asked how many visitors could be brought into the coffee lounge. From what he said, it looked as if someone was going for the Guinness Book of Records rather than simply providing refreshment for people.
It would be inappropriate for all these detailed practical arrangements to come to the Floor of the House. The detailed regulations, which are not in themselves contentious, are available. They will be issued to Members tomorrow after the completion of this debate.

Mr Danny O'Connor: The motion refers to
"officers in all-party Assembly groups and all-party groups whose membership is open to members of more than one party".
Surely that should read "members of all parties". That is the point MrMaskey was trying to make. The membership cannot be drawn from Sinn Féin and ourselves because that would exclude Members from the other side of the House. We need clarification: when we refer to all-party groups and to more than one party, we mean "open to all parties".

Lord Alderdice: The regulations make it clear that a group cannot be registered as all-party if it includes only Members, for example, from the two parties that the Member has referred to. That is because such a group would not include Members from all three political designations. The problem about insisting that all-party groups should have Members from all parties is that some parties might not wish to, or might not be in a position to, facilitate membership of all groups.
There is a difference between the founding of a group and the continuation of a group. One of the earliest issues that the Assembly was lobbied about was breast cancer. A group on that might be set up with founder members from all three political designations, but it might happen that, for various reasons such as pressure of time, other interests, or whatever, subsequently not all the parties or party groups or designations were represented.
Should a group that was open to all parties be made to collapse simply because there was not sufficient interest to enable it to continue even though there had been sufficient interest at its foundation? Generally we think not. Members may find themselves increasingly pulled this way and that by all sorts of genuine interests.
Members’ concerns are perfectly reasonable, but when they read the regulations they will see that all those concerns are fully dealt with. If it is the case that, in any way, they are not dealt with, it is open for the matter to be brought back to the Floor of the House for further regulations to be made.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I refer to the phrase "whose membership is open to Members of more than one party". If it were to read "whose membership is open to Members of all parties" nobody would be excluded. We would not be saying that Members from all parties had to join, but that it was open to Members from all parties. That is how I should like it to read.

Lord Alderdice: I understand the Member’s concern. The problem is that he has only two options, as do other Members. One is to vote for it, and the other is to vote against it. There is no possibility of tabling an amendment now since Standing Orders make it clear that amendments have to be put down one hour before the commencement of the sitting. Under the current Standing Orders I am not able to take manuscript or other amendments at this time. I am bound by Standing Orders in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That officers in all-party Assembly groups and all-party groups whose membership is open to members of more than one party be required to register the names of the officers of the group and the source and extent of any benefits, financial or in kind, from outside sources which they may enjoy, together with any other relevant gainful occupation of any staff which they may have; and that where a public relations agency provides the assistance the ultimate client should be named.

Assembly: Adjournment Debates

Lord Alderdice: Previous Adjournment debates gave all Members the opportunity to make maiden speeches on a range of subjects. Members will know that the regulations have changed so that a specific topic is chosen for each Adjournment debate, to which Members will now speak. A number of Members put forward proposals, four of which related to the topic that has been chosen, and one relating to another subject.
However, I am aware that Members learnt of the specific topic only on Friday or Saturday, and that some would have wished to speak had they had more time. I remind Members that there has been a further change to the effect that the deadline for the submission of topics for the next Adjournment debate will be noon and not 5.00 pm on the Thursday prior to the next sitting. If we have the subjects by noon, the choice can be made and the subject of the Adjournment debate can be printed on the Order Paper. Next week’s Order Paper will show the subject of the Adjournment debate.
Members whose topic is chosen will already have their names tabled and need do nothing further. Members whose topic has not been chosen may then put their names down.
I have to rule that I can take requests for the Adjournment debate only until the commencement of the sitting. Today I received a substantial number of requests not only prior to but during the sitting. Given that we have completed the rest of our business significantly in advance of the expected time, I am prepared to allow the Adjournment debate to go on until we have completed the list of Members which I now have. However, I am not prepared to take any further names after the start of the Adjournment debate.
If the Assembly is prepared to give leave, I am prepared to complete the list of Members — which I believe is about 10 or 12 — who can speak for up to 10 minutes, rather than take just the first six.
If the Assembly is prepared so to give leave it will ensure that we still finish in advance of the expected time of 6 o’clock.

Mr Sam Foster: While not wishing to take away from Adjournment debates, I wonder of what value they are at the moment, apart from the fact that they give Members a chance to make a speech that is recorded. What cognisance is taken of them? How do they increase the general well-being of the community?

Lord Alderdice: It would not be proper for me to make a judgement of that kind; it is for me to try to facilitate the proceedings in such a way that Members can make their views public. Whether the public or the public administration take due notice of the views of Members is a subject on which I would not be so presumptuous as to speak, much less to rule. I suppose the real answer will become apparent only as time goes on.
By leave of the Assembly, we will proceed to the Adjournment debate on that basis.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Property and Planning Development

Mr Peter Weir: I am glad to see that the topic that I put forward has been selected. It appears to be a very popular topic, judging by the response you have received. It is a very important subject, even if the impact of an Adjournment debate is somewhat limited, as indicated by MrFoster. Planning covers a wide range of issues.
On a point of order, MrInitialPresiding Officer. I have just noticed that the clocks do not appear to have started. Whereas sometimes I feel as though I am speaking in some form of suspended animation, it seems that it has become real, for once.

Lord Alderdice: I offer the apologies of the Clerk Assistant in question.

Mr Peter Weir: The response to the motion shows that a wide range of planning issues can be dealt with. For example, there are problems with planning permission in rural areas, and, to some extent, there is a clash between that and property development in green belt areas. In view of the wide range of issues, I intend to confine my remarks to one that has caused great concern in my constituency of North Down and across the political spectrum of North Down, albeit that the parties in that area would not be enough to form an interest group.
There has been controversy about property development in North Down recently. Examples are the proposals in relation to Seacourt, Ballymacormick and Helen’s Bay, which are being discussed at a meeting today. I was told today that there are planning problems with an application in the Ballyholme Road.
The instance that I want to draw to the Assembly’s attention relates to a property at 97-99CliftonRoad that was known as Ardmara. It was a beautiful Victorian building. Towards the end of last year, proposals were submitted by a property developer, MrBillWolsey, who owned the site, to develop it to create a set of apartment blocks.
At that time the local residents, to their credit, fought vigorously against the proposal, arguing that the architectural heritage of that part of Bangor should be preserved. As with most towns, Bangor has a limited stock of Victorian houses. Most of the build in North Down is relatively new, and what heritage we have must be jealously guarded.
Early in the year, the strong efforts and lobbying of local residents seemed to have been successful. It seemed that the property developer’s proposals would fail, and he consequently withdrew his planning application. Representations to the local residents suggested that he would not be going ahead with it, and that he would be minded to seek a compromise that would retain the integrity of the building.
Unsurprisingly, the residents concluded that they had secured a victory of sorts, and that their pressure had been successful. Unfortunately, and much to the shame of the developer, this proved to be merely a ruse. On Saturday 13February at about 6.00 am the property developer moved onto the site with bulldozers and a group of what can only be described as "heavies" and destroyed the Ardmara building. What he did was within the law. No one can quibble about that. There is a clear gap in the law in that, while planning permission is required to build, in circumstances like this property can be demolished and nothing can be done about it.
The demolition greatly distressed the local residents, and it was a clear case of environmental and architectural vandalism which showed the developer’s contempt for the feelings of the people of North Down. Problems attended the destruction. Electricity was still being supplied to the building, and in the process of demolition the developer cut some cables, causing a power cut in the area and creating great inconvenience for some residents.
We must learn from the Ardmara situation. There are a number of ways in which buildings can be protected. The first is by way of listing a building, but this has a number of drawbacks. The bulk of NorthernIreland’s listed buildings were designated as such prior to 1972. It is a fairly lengthy process. When the Ardmara situation first arose, enquiries were made to see if it could be listed, although it was made clear to the residents that it would take about six months before that could be done.
One of the problems with listing is that as soon as anyone shows any interest in having a building listed, the Department of the Environment immediately contacts the owner of that building to inform them, and that gives the unscrupulous property developers the opportunity to do what might now be described locally as a "Wolsey" and come in and demolish it. Until a building is listed, there is no protection.
Another avenue would be to create a conservation area. In the long term I would like to see a chunk of the Ballyholme and Clifton area described that way, but that is a lengthy process and can take years. It is extremely costly for the Department of the Environment to pursue this option, and it does so reluctantly. However, it does provide much immediate protection for a building under threat.
There needs to be a wider look at Northern Ireland’s planning regulations. One partial solution which has been suggested and has worked quite well in Belfast would be to designate parts of a town which have a particular character or are of architectural or historical significance as areas of "townscape character." Twenty areas in Belfast have been so designated, and, although it does not have the same statutory effect as listing or designating a conservation area, it at least puts down a marker to potential developers that the area in question will be one of those considered by the planning authorities when an application is made.
In a recent case in the Knockdene area of Belfast the High Court held that ground there could be taken into consideration, and I understand the local council has plans to declare part of that a "townscape area". A greater degree of strength needs to be given to such a proposal, since it currently has no statutory effect. Indeed, outside Belfast it is of questionable value because of the fact that it is not contained within any of the area plans — unlike Belfast.
The lack of consideration for the wishes of the local people and the fact that they are not formally involved in the process cause great problems in respect of planning matters. A greater degree of planning control should be devolved from this body or from the Government to councils to ensure that decisions are taken by people who know best how to protect their own area.
One other move that should be considered in trying to rectify planning legislation would be to make some kind of formal community involvement an important consideration in major planning development cases. Certain environmental cases currently have to be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. For example, it would determine the impact of a sewerage works on a local community. For major planning developments, we could have a sort of community impact audit as part of the criteria.
In the wider context, in North Down certainly and leaving aside planning, a greater policy issue is population movement. There has been pressure to create more dwellings, but part of that has been the result of an exodus from Belfast over the past few years. An examination needs to be carried out to ensure that there is greater regeneration in areas of Belfast that could accommodate a greater number of people in affordable housing. We have to avoid the problem of so-called infill in which, in areas such as Bangor, too many people are chasing too few properties.
The Government or this devolved institution should carry out a major review of Northern Ireland’s planning legislation so that fresh ideas are considered to ensure that the heritage, particularly architectural, environmental heritage is given proper protection.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank MrWeir for telling the Ardmara story, for it allows me to get straight to my point. Without doubt, the issue of planning and development has for many years caused tremendous problems for people, planners and politicians. The Ardmara issue and other, similar cases, not only in North Down but throughout Northern Ireland, are coming to the fore.
I was at the protest just after the new year. I stood outside Ardmara to praise the architectural beauty of the building and to protest against its demolition. About 100 men, women and children were there. A couple of weeks ago, I was at another protest, at night, in a field in Ballymacormick, and apparently, there were about 500people present. At that event a reporter came up to me and said "What is going on here? This place is known as "Apathyville". How come hundreds and hundreds of people are going into the fields and on to the streets to complain about these issues?".
People do that not just because they care about green belts or historic buildings but because they realise that in this new climate of democracy in government it is possible that their voices will be heard. They are going out there and starting to shout, and that is excellent.
It is plain that the legislation in this area is far, far too weak. It has too many loopholes and it is not working. We need fresh ideas and new legislation, and we need to respect the rights of the people who are living in the vicinity of these development areas. We need legislation that will take proper account of the needs and desires of local communities in the planning and development process. We need laws that will put the care, safety, health and happiness of the very young and the very old first.
We need housing estates with playgrounds. I will not say what should happen to those who in the past thought of building 21,000 houses and not one swing. Why are there housing estates with no playgrounds? Why are there roads with no cycle paths? Why are there no traffic-calming measures on roads in the vicinity of schools? Why are there shopping precincts and offices with plenty of car parks but no crèche facilities? Who is making these plans? Who is thinking about all of this? We need change.
We need legislation to protect our heritage and the natural space in which we live, and there is no time like the present. We are about to have a new Government and new powers, and we are about to enter a new millennium.
I call for a millennium preservation order. Such an order would prohibit the demolition of any building or tree over 100yearsold, and it would oblige planners and developers to take account, as MrWeir has rightly suggested, of the views of the communities living in the locality of a development site. Under such legislation, development plans would not be acceptable unless they included a community-impact assessment. It is wonderful that, while we in the constituency may not agree on certain things, we are all agreed on that.
Europe insists on environmental-impact assessments. Before a project goes ahead we must determine how it will affect the birds, the bees, the trees, and the grass. There is nothing that obliges us to consult with people living in the area, or to note their views.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Member agree that neighbour notification is at least the start of some kind of consultation, and that that was a result of the efforts of the 1982-85 Assembly?

Ms Jane Morrice: I am sure that MrWilson will agree with me that is not enough. The majority of letters in our in-trays are from individuals complaining about planning applications and about their voices not being heard. It is obvious that whatever was started then must be finished, and finished properly.
This issue is important because it will give local people a sense of ownership of the project, and we are talking about inclusion. The Women’s Coalition stands for inclusion, and this is inclusion at grassroots level.
A millennium preservation order would list all buildings erected before 1990 in a new category between a conservation order and townscape character criteria. It would allow for the sympathetic development of a building which responded to the needs of an ever-expanding population in the twenty-first century but also respected our heritage. It would introduce steep fines for those who broke the law and destroyed a building or tree which was more than 100yearsold except, of course, under exceptional circumstances and after agreement with experts and the local community. Those fines could be used to fund organisations such as the Conservation Volunteers or the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society to enable them to continue their valuable work. Such an order would also strengthen current legislation and introduce measures such as spot-listing. Why do we not have spot-listing, which occurs in England. Why could we not have spot-listed Ardmara?
We must have townscape character and conservation areas to ensure that laws are enforced correctly, and we must have a safety net, a third-party appeals system which would allow people to have their voices heard.
That would promote greater awareness among the population of the value and importance of preserving our built and our natural environments.

Sir John Gorman: As people know, I have served with the Housing Executive from 1979 and was confronted by many planning problems. One of them was a lack of power and that situation exists now to an even greater degree. An example was the destruction of OgleStreet in Armagh, even though the relic of StMalachy showed it as an historic place. It was ruined one weekend by the "terrorist activity" of a developer who simply brought in bulldozers and knocked the whole street down. Mr Wolsey did exactly the same on Saturday in Bangor. I strongly recommend that the Assembly considers this matter at the earliest opportunity.
Those who read ‘The Sunday Times’, a paper that sometimes contains disobliging news will have seen what has happened in Dublin, and where MrRedmond — a good name — has got to now with corruption. We may have to look at that.

Lord Alderdice: I have to call time on the intervention because it has used up the remainder of MsMorrice’s speech time. I am not able to allow her to continue.

Ms Jane Morrice: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. May I ask for the leave of the Assembly to deliver the last 30 seconds of my address, having given generously of my time to SirJohn Gorman?

Lord Alderdice: I put that to the Assembly.
Members indicated assent.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Assembly.
A millennium preservation order would be a simple and timely solution to an age-old problem, and the new millennium will give us an opportunity to introduce such a measure. If a 100-year order were put to the people in a referendum, it would get 100% support. I suggest that if such legislation is introduced, it could be called the Ardmara order as a tribute.

Mr Alan McFarland: The recent calamity at Ardmara is a symptom of a wider problem — the present state of the planning laws and their effect throughout Northern Ireland. Bangor is an interesting place and probably one of the most rapidly developing locations in the Province. Every year hundreds, if not thousands, of houses are built, and new estates are being formed on the outskirts of Bangor. Over the past five years there has been a massive increase in the number of houses.
Young couples come from elsewhere and buy expensive and smart houses on the edge of the green belt. But after about nine months they look out, and, lo and behold, the diggers have come. They suddenly discover that the little bit of roadway at the end of their cul-de-sac, which nobody appeared to own — it was not on their plans, and they could not understand that — is the property of the builder, and that he intends to use it to put up the next estate.
They find that they are in a string of estates, which all join up together. The area becomes a rat-run which is covered with cars every morning as drivers try to negotiate an outer, outer ring road around Bangor in an effort to get more quickly to their work in Belfast. People are fed up with that.
Those who build such estates do not seem to take children into account, because they build them without greenfield sites or amenities such as swings. That results in kids kicking their heels around the estates and a marked increase in vandalism. It is too far for them to go into the centre of Bangor so they go around writing on walls and causing chaos.
North Down also has the problem of the disposal of sewage. Because of the additional people, there is extra waste. We have had an investigation that has lasted over two years, and three sites were all objected to. We currently have four more, and an adjudication on those is due in the next two weeks or so.
All those problems are symptomatic of the lack of co-ordination. The North Down and Ards Area Plan (1984-95) is an outstanding document by the Department of the Environment. It has come to an end, and there is nothing to replace it, so no one has any idea about what is supposed to happen, not just in Bangor but in Ards and everywhere else. The thing is in complete limbo and it seems to have given rise to an open season on challenging.
We have, at the moment, several challenges in Bangor. MrWeir mentioned Ballymacormick where someone is trying to build an entire estate between Bangor and Groomsport that will join the two places up. That is totally contrary to the ‘Shaping Our Future’ document which came out last year and which said that all such villages should be kept separate.
Firms are seeking planning permission, trying to get round the limitations of what was understood to be a green-belt area. In Helen’s Valley another organisation is trying to build an entire village between Crawfordsburn and Helen’s Bay, on the site of MrGeddis’s farm. For those Members who know that farm, this proposal would probably represent an improvement. MrGeddis, when refused planning permission, took umbrage and caused absolute chaos by turning his farm into a complete tip. Last year he threatened to buy the submarines that were sunk off the coast of Donegal at the end of the Second World War and put them on his farm to spite people further. I think he is hoping that this will all go away with this new Helen’sView, but it will join up areas that, according to ‘Shaping the Future’ should not be joined up. These areas are a worry.
In Belfast there is an agreed plan that 50% of new build will be on brown-field sites — existing sites where the rubble has been removed. I understand — and I am going by hearsay — that, somehow, the DOE planners were nobbled. The big construction companies seemed to have got at the planners as only 20% of new build was on brown-field sites. This should not be allowed to happen.
In North Down it is popular to buy a large house. The buyer may or may not renovate it, but he definitely sells off the garden where a developer can build at least two more houses at over £100,000 each. I am not talking about my garden, I hasten to add. That is only for those who have the money to buy such houses.
Another favourite ploy of developers is to build flats. At Seacourt, permission was given to build houses and, lo and behold, along came a developer, again trying to get past the planning regulations, who wants to build flats. This row is still going on.
One possible answer is to seek townscape status where an area is deemed to be of such unique character and special status that it warrants extra protection. This may or may not work. Clearly, some areas do not qualify for such protection. If a house such as Ardmara and other houses in Bangor do not qualify for such protection, then it is open season for a developer to come in and knock them flat.
As Mr Weir said masked workers came on the Ardmara site at 6o’clock in the morning and flattened the building without switching off the electricity. As a result, the rubble started to burn, and the surrounding area was left without electricity. Such action is sheer vandalism.
These examples show that the present planning system is not working. I urge the new Minister and the Committee which will be looking at planning matters to sort out this Province-wide problem.

Mrs Iris Robinson: There are several items that I want to draw to Members’ attention.
First, I should like to refer to planning in relation to private matters. There is something terribly wrong when owners of land and property are restricted with regard to development because of petty bureaucratic rules administered by those who have no ownership rights. For example, churches have to apply for permission to erect a notice board. Another example is that of the homeowner who has to apply for permission to erect a porch. Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously without all the red tape that is presently involved.
Worst of all is the plight of the farming community who are unable to get planning permission to build a house for a member of their family to keep them on the land and in this country or to build a retirement home for themselves after many years of working the land. That is the effect of repressive planning bureaucracy. It is like saying "You may own a tree but you cannot climb it, eat its fruit, cut any of its branches for firewood or put up a tree house." In such circumstances, what does ownership mean?
Secondly, I should like to deal with planning in relation to business enterprise. For many years the expansion of Comber has been hindered. Government cuts and planning restrictions have combined to leave Comber like a ghost town, with expansion and development taking place outside it.
An opportunity has arisen in that a private consortium is seeking to meet housing demand, provide community facilities and build, as part of its development, the long-awaited Comber bypass. The developers have called it the community village project. However, such is the petty procedure of planning, that it may take some time to get off the ground. I take this opportunity to call on the Minister to cut the red tape and allow this project to proceed as quickly as possible. It was in that vein that I recently wrote to the Minister.
Another development is that proposed for Newtownards. A group of developers have submitted plans for a £50million development. It is for a scheme that will stop leakage to other areas; will increase business in Ards; will not cost the ratepayer a penny; will give business opportunities to locals; will provide numerous jobs; and will give us the roads service that the Government have failed to provide. It has taken about two years to get the idea down on paper and lodged with the Planning Service. We shall have to see what it does with it.
The scheme has the support of Ards Borough Council and the traders in the town. However, the scheme could be thrown into chaos if it is proposed to develop commercially at the former Scrabo High School site. That would inevitably lead to a public inquiry and delay development in Ards town centre for a number of years before permission is granted — if it is granted. Meanwhile, other schemes in other places will continue to take trade away from the town centre.
Until now Newtownards has not had a business park. This proposal will provide one. Wearing my hat as a councillor, I can say that in Castlereagh, we on the board of Dundonald International Ice Bowl had to wait two full years for the result of a public inquiry to learn whether we could go ahead with an innovative and exciting scheme on council land. That was a totally unacceptable delay, and considerable interest and economic investment could have been lost if it had been delayed further. It is imperative that the whole Planning Department is taken over by the Assembly, and that its rules, restrictive practices and operations are examined in depth and revised where necessary.
Thirdly, the report that was passed by the Assembly has separated planning from regional development while urban renewal is placed in social development. It seems to me, and to other Members, as noted in last week’s debate, that there needs to be a revision of the placing of various matters. It would make more sense to have a closer link between those departments which cover planning and development so that, after devolution, Members are not guilty of applying the same bureaucratic red tape that we have long complained about.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Chathaoirligh, in the Assembly and, I suppose, at council level one always finds that there are two levels to such debates. One relates to what IrisRobinson has spoken about, and the other relates to how people can demolish buildings because regulations are not strong enough. I will try to address the matter in terms of agricultural and rural areas. There are major problems with property and planning development in areas such as Fermanagh and SouthTyrone. It is affected as much as any other area, and perhaps more so.
The public perception, which I think is correct, is that there are great difficulties in working with the present planning controls and policies in trying to secure development in rural areas for both inward investment and family dwellings. The public and members of councils have been greatly frustrated in recent years by the severe constraints imposed on development, especially of domestic dwellings and small industry in the countryside. This difficulty is due mainly to the planners’ interpretation of the green book, which relates to the raft of regulations. The local planners’ interpretation of the regulations determines whether someone can proceed with development or build a house in the countryside.
There is also input by the Department of Agriculture, and it works out badly against those who are trying to build houses on farms or anywhere in the countryside. It uses figures which state, for example, that one must be a full-time farmer, but many are now coming to the point where it is becoming a part-time practice, and that is not taken into account. Farmers have moved with the times, but the Department of Agriculture has not. I should like to see changes that would allow some flexibility. The Department is as bad as the planners in working against farm level development.
Everyone understands the need for vibrant rural communities. The European concepts in relation to European funding include rural regeneration; rural development; a living, working countryside; sustainable development; economic regeneration; and halting rural decline. While all that is laudable, and in many cases forms the basis of the aims and objectives, people pay only lip-service to it. None of this means anything to ordinary people if they are not allowed to develop and live in rural areas.
I recognise the need to preserve what is rich and beautiful in the countryside, especially in areas such as Fermanagh, the Sperrins and many others. There are many, perhaps too many, bodies with a conservation agenda which hold powerful influence over planning. They include, for example, the Countryside and Wildlife Branch, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, conservationists and the Green lobbies, who are often London and European based. They have, in the past, destroyed their own areas and are now applying the regulations to us — I suppose as a cover for the damage that they have done in their own countries. Such measures bear no relation to the kind of countryside that we have. Farmers have looked after the countryside, in the North and in Ireland as a whole, well over the years. It must be well preserved.
The Government have imposed regulatory bodies such as ESA, and areas of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty making planning difficult. They are useful in trying to preserve flora and fauna and help the countryside, but they create tremendous difficulties and are used by the planners to stop people building or getting past planning regulations.
There must be planning flexibility to allow people to build in the countryside while also looking after the valuable heritage and beauty of the areas. As Members have said, farmers’ sons and daughters, need to be able to build dwellings near the family home. If this generation of young people is denied that and forced into towns and cities, the rural areas will lose those who are countryside-friendly and have an inherited love of the countryside. I do not mean that those from the cities do not love the countryside, but that indigenous people, those who have been reared in the countryside, often have a high level of tolerance to agricultural practices.
The council recently had a complaint from someone who had bought or built a big house in a lovely quiet area of the countryside, and was astonished to find, at 6o’clock on a summer’s morning, that the place was completely taken over by farmers, machinery and silage-making equipment. They simply do not like it.
The lack of young people to work on the farms will accelerate the decline of the rural community. Areas west of the Bann are continuing to lose jobs and services which are being centralised in other areas. Areas such as Fermanagh, Armagh and Tyrone, in spite of the impact of tourism and rural development programmes, still depend overwhelmingly on agriculture. This is unlikely to change in the near future, so it is important that the rural economy be preserved.
If we are going to talk about equality, we should also think in terms of east/west equality. Some people may not enjoy hearing people from west of the Bann complaining about the loss of jobs and services. But we have always lost out, and we need investment in those areas as much as anywhere else. The condition of local roads militates against the development of the rural economy and is a considerable disincentive to companies considering bringing investment to the area. They face a situation in which it takes two hours for a lorry to travel to Belfast, or to any other port, to deliver produce for export.
Figures from the Industrial Development Board show that in certain years as few as two companies were directed towards us for new investment in Fermanagh, compared to the 50 that were directed to other areas. It is not surprising that we do not have much investment, although, of course, there is some investment that we would not welcome. We have a very beautiful lakeland environment, and we could only welcome investment which would be environmentally friendly.
Small industries may be the way forward for the rural economy. Many products that we import from other countries could be produced at home. An example of this is the meat-processing industry. The SeanQuinn group is an example of a successful local industry. It started from small beginnings, yet, if it were to start up today, it would not get past the planning stage. These are the kinds of problems faced by people in our area.
I hope that the Assembly will be able to make a difference to people in these areas. If greater powers are given to local councils, councillors will have to reconcile their differences about what should be preserved and what can be used for building. We should ensure that a correct balance is struck, and that people are not given carte blanche to build all over the place. At the same time, we should try to ensure that our rural communities are allowed to survive and, indeed, to develop.
I agree with many of the points made earlier about out-of-town supermarket developments. People often say that they create many jobs. It is my opinion that for every job they create they destroy a smaller one in a town. This has often been the case with some of the picturesque towns down South — this is a hobby horse of mine — where planners have not considered the long-term position. These supermarket chains may well rob many of these picturesque villages of their charm, as local shops close down one by one. People should bear that in mind.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Mr Foster asked earlier about the value of Adjournment debates. They are valuable and can be used to flag up areas of concern to the Assembly. Planning is one such issue. It affects people in all areas, and people feel powerless to do anything about it no matter how much they protest. People feel that they have no voice, and we in the Assembly must rectify that.
As a local government representative for some years, I have found the planning process and its implementation one of the most frustrating issues that I have had to deal with. Members all know that there must be development to cater for the housing needs that are clearly evident throughout Northern Ireland. However, planning applications must take into account the existing residents and the type of area that is being developed. Other issues which must be considered but do not seem to be are traffic, general road safety, environmental topics, such as drains and sewage, as MrMcFarland has already mentioned, and trees, wildlife and open spaces.
Increasing disturbance or change of use must also be considered, but it is clear that this does not always happen. Ardmara, Ballymacormick and the Geddis development are all currently at different stages of development and are causing Members different levels of concern. I should like to list a number of other cases to illustrate planning inadequacies.
An application was made for a funeral home and chapel of rest to be built beside a busy road junction that had a large garage nearby, and, worst of all, a primary school. The application was allowed because it satisfied the criteria of the Planning Department in relation to land and parking spaces in the area, but it did not take account of the road junction, the busy garage and nearly 300people who opposed it. That building is now almost complete, and it is already causing problems. I dread to think of what will happen once it is in full use.
Another application currently being processed near my home is for a small shopping precinct on a wildlife area with a lake and a little forest. It is also near a busy roundabout and busy roads, and in the middle of an intensely-populated residential area. This application has been ongoing for some years, and there has been much opposition from residents. At one stage the developer agreed to a small residential development and to retain some of the environmental area. This was favoured in the area, but he then received an application from one of the large supermarket groups that GerryMcHugh was talking about, and the residential application went by the board.
I could give many examples. One matter that disturbed me about Ballymacormick was that the developer, when questioned by councillors last week about preservation of the green belt, informed the council that more houses were needed and that the green belt provision would have to be overruled. That is dangerous and neither I nor any of my Colleagues, would favour such a move.
The examples which I and others have given — and I make no apology for again referring to the vandalism and destruction of Ardmara — show that applications are not dealt with sensitively. As SammyWilson said, information is circulated to residents, but it is not circulated to everyone, and it is not a satisfactory process. That matter should be looked at.
When the fact that the application was being submitted was first circulated to some residents, they formed a substantial opposition group. There was a great meeting, already referred to, I think by JaneMorrice, on the Saturday morning, which was attended by many people not just from the area itself who were concerned about what was happening to Bangor. Two Saturdays later there was a completely different atmosphere when we saw the fire burning and the bulldozer moving through the remains of the building. The application had been withdrawn and councillors had been told that there would be a stay of the process — and that is what happened when we took them at their word.
It is completely unacceptable, and the first priority of the Assembly and its relevant Committee should be to review the whole planning process and the criteria for applications. Then, perhaps, people such as the residents of CliftonRoad would not be put in this position. This is not an example of Nimbyism; it is a concern for what is happening to the whole ethos of our homes, and it can also set a serious precedent in north Down. In that area three further houses are under threat, and if this is allowed to continue, it will be dreadful for us.
Lobbying can be successful, as in the case of the Crawfordsburn hospital, which we prevented from being razed to the ground and which is now being refurbished. Progress can be made when there is liaison between developers and residents. Developers have been allowed to progress their aims carte blanche. That must be stopped and clear, balanced criteria set out.
MrWeir outlined the problems with conservation and heritage processes. The Assembly must review this matter to ensure that those processes are not so long and arduous. As MrMcFarland said, North Down Council has a commitment to townscape planning. This is not a perfect situation, but it is something. It is too late for Ardmara, but I hope it will not be too late for other houses in the area. I hope that townscape planning is expedited in north Down as soon as possible.
We also have to consider setting up a community planning committee, another matter that my two Colleagues have mentioned. This is a committee to which councillors have an input, and it can deal with all applications and, especially, with the sensitive ones. The process of notification might also be strengthened by this sort of liaison.
As we approach the millennium I hope that steps will be taken to ensure more protection for our green spaces, our trees and our buildings. I would hate Northern Ireland to become like Belgium. When we were in Brussels last November I was horrified to hear of the destruction of beautiful old buildings in the city centre and of their replacement by modern glass towers.
The Assembly must look closely at planning legislation so that citizens and developers are listened to, and so that developments can go forward without opposition and acrimony. Let us make Ardmara a milestone, an example of what not to do. I support the proposal by MsMorrice for a millennium preservation order. That would be a significant message to the likes of MrWolsey and to some people in the Planning Service.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The proposal for a millennium preservation order is a little strange. MsMorrice and MrsBell were obviously speaking from a north Down perspective. I recently visited some constituents who have just moved out of the street next to where I live, out of houses which were more than 100 years old and had no bathrooms, no inside toilet and no central heating. They now live in new bungalows just up the road. I do not think that these people would thank Members for a millennium preservation order on their homes.

Ms Jane Morrice: Does the Member agree that, while it is good for people to be housed in comfortable accommodation with proper modern facilities, the style of those 100-year-old houses should be kept? They should be refurbished and brought up to modern standards.

Mr Sammy Wilson: That intervention shows the diversity between north Down and east Belfast. I assure Members that a two-up, two-down terraced house, with a small backyard, in a street which is narrow and full of traffic, cannot be refurbished to a standard which is acceptable at the end of the twentieth century or at the beginning of the next millennium.
We must be careful when talking about planning issues that we do not opt for what appears on the surface to be an easy answer to a problem without looking at the complexities.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sammy Wilson: No. I have already given way.
When it comes to planning issues we can sometimes give a charter to people who do not want any changes and who do not want to see any development taking place. Nimbys have been mentioned.
There is a new branch of opposition to planning applications — the "bananas" who would build nothing near anybody. As to the kind of suggestions which have been made today, we must be careful not to swing the balance towards —

Mrs Eileen Bell: That is not what I said.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I listened carefully.
There is a need for effective planning. One has only to look at the destruction of Belfast and the surrounding countryside to see evidence of the problems associated with the absence of clear strategic planning. For example, huge traffic queues build up in the east and the south sides of the city every day and inner-city communities get the resulting pollution. In my constituency of East Belfast we suffer from the pollution and congestion that are caused by people in outlying areas who come into Belfast every day and return home to a much better environment than those who have to live with the short-term effects of bad planning.
Many problems need to be addressed, and, unfortunately, the Assembly may have created some in relation to planning organisation. Last week we agreed to put planning into four different departments: rural planning, urban regeneration, strategic planning and development control. We will have a planning nightmare.
Apart from what the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) call dislocation, there is the problem of contradiction in the planning rules.
I will give Members one example. I would like to speak more about general issues, but Belfast City Council opposed a huge development on the D5 site in the harbour estate. We quoted from the Department of the Environment’s own policies, which were written in 1996. In 1997 the Department said at a public inquiry that there was no justifiable need for any regional out-of-town shopping centres in NorthernIreland. Within sixmonths of that, another public inquiry granted permission for a massive regional shopping centre on the outskirts of Belfast.
There are contradictions in the policy, and I agree with EileenBell that many of these appear to be driven by the powerful lobby which some developers have with the Department of the Environment. I hope that the Assembly will be able to address that.
There is also the problem of out-of-date policies. I recently dealt with an application from a developer who wished to build apartments in the centre of Belfast, but, in spite of the fact that most of the people who would be living in the apartments would be working just 300 or 400 yards away, the Department insisted on parking standards that would apply in the suburbs. Such matters need to be addressed.
I want to address planning from an urban regeneration perspective. We must create homes. As the Minister said twoyears ago, and as AlanMcFarland indicated, the first priority must be to bring people back into towns. That is where the infrastructure of under-used schools, under-used community facilities, and, in some cases, under-used parks are to be found. They are not on the outskirts of the city. The Department set a target of 50%, yet it is now down to 20,000 houses, which is less than 20% in the inner city.
First, if we intend to develop brown-field land, we must make it easier for developers to build in towns and ensure that they are not held to ransom by one person who owns a bit of ground that would give them access to a large site for development. There must be land assembly. That is important.
Secondly, there must be financial assistance. At present, land costs are about £40,000 per unit, regardless of whether it is a green-field or a brown-field site. I do not remember whether it was MsMorrice or MrsBell who spoke about the need to provide more green areas in these developments. The associated costs of that mean that a developer gets fewer houses per acre and, therefore, that the cost of the land for houses goes up. Ultimately the people who live in those houses either pay higher rents to the Housing Executive or higher prices to buy their homes.

Ms Jane Morrice: Where will their children play?

Mr Sammy Wilson: That is a good question. There is a down side to that which we must address. We should not build estates without play facilities. Brown-field sites hold the key to this. Very often they are right beside under-used community and play facilities which could be better used if there were development on the land.
Thirdly, we must look at planning policies in the light of the need for urban development and regeneration. That may mean relaxing planning controls. I have mentioned one in relation to parking. Developers have asked that other issues be addressed if they are to go into brown-field sites, and we have heard about the problems with green-field sites between Bangor and Groomsport. Perhaps in future a developer wishing to develop a green-field site will be required to give a commitment to develop a brown-field site as well. That would be one way of doing it. In parts of England they have been talking about introducing green-field site taxes which would then be used to subsidise much more expensive brown-field sites in town centres.
These are all issues which I hope the Assembly will take up. If we continue simply to expand towns and allow people to live on the outskirts and travel in every day, we will not have sustainable development, and we will have many environmental problems in the future.

Mr Jim Shannon: I will touch on a couple of issues that are important for the area which I represent.
The first relates to farmers and those who apply for dwellings. I have fought a number of cases over the years for people who were born on the land, who own the land, who have their herd numbers and who also own the farm buildings, but who, unfortunately, because of circumstances are part-time farmers. That means that they cannot apply for houses in those farm areas that are subject to special control and conditions. Those who have lived on the land for generations and who should have the right to continue to work and live there have been barred from doing that.
One of the issues that I feel quite strongly about relates to retirement dwellings for farmers and dwellings for their sons and daughters who wish to remain on the land.
In some cases the rural strategy plan states that there must be diversification and that help will be given to those who want to diversify within farming. Over the years we have found that those who live on farm holdings and have applied to diversify have been unable to do that simply because the planning regulations have been so strict.
We also have examples of farmers who have caravan parks. Strangford, the area that I represent, is one of the areas affected. Indeed, it is the second largest area in the Province for caravanners and holidaymakers.
If a farmer wishes to extend his caravan park into a small field or to an area that runs close to one that is already in use, the planners tell him he cannot do that because it is not a coastline development. Once again we have this double standard. On one hand, they say that you can diversify; on the other hand, they say that you cannot diversify because it is against the planning regulations. Those are a couple of examples of matters that particularly concern me.
As I mentioned earlier, there has been a large number of applications from farmers’ sons and daughters for farm dwellings and retirement buildings. This issue is causing the greatest consternation among people in the rural community that I represent as an Assembly Member and as a member of Ards Borough Council.
As the demands upon farmers increase, as financial pressure continues to squeeze them and as many become full-time farmers with part-time wages, the need to have their sons and daughters at home becomes more crucial. The rules and regulations set by the planning department with regard to man hours do not relate to all applications. Sons and daughters who were born and brought up on the land should have a right to return to the land, even if the holdings are smallholdings and the man hours do not satisfy the rules and the regulations laid down by the Department. Once again, the authorities seem to be putting up barriers to these people, and that must be addressed in future planning strategy.
I wish to express deep concern about the ‘Shaping Our Future’ policy document, which states
"It is proposed that a Green Belt Zone be created around the Belfast Metropolitan Area that will take in a 25 mile ‘travel to work’ area."
That 25-mile radius takes in the whole of the Ards Peninsula and a vast part of Strangford, and it will exclude the building of houses on land where there has been no exclusion before. It will mean that those people who in the past were able to build houses in certain areas, in hamlets and so on, will be unable to do so. This very strict 25-mile travel-to-work area rule will prevent them from doing so.
I wish to express very real concern about the impact that that will have upon village communities and towns. It will take away choice. While I do not disagree entirely with what my Colleague Sammy Wilson says, I feel that it is important in rural communities to maintain the right of those who were born and bred on the land to come back to the land, should they so wish. Special rules would be required to enable them to do that. The man-hours regulation, as laid down by the Department, is unfair in many instances in respect of those people who wish to return to the land.
It is important to achieve a balance. There is also the right of the people who wish to come to live in villages and on the edge of town. Why are people moving from Belfast to places such as Strangford, Newtownards, north Down and Lisburn? Quite simply, it is because it is nicer there. The grass is greener, the sun shines a little more often, and sometimes it is nice to get away from the concrete in Belfast that Sammy Wilson loves so much.
The real issue is that if people wish to live there, we have to make provision for them. The planners cannot tell someone that he cannot build a house in Newtownards because they say so. That is not how it works. People want to move to Newtownards, to the villages of the Ards peninsula, and to Comber and Ballygowan, and we want to encourage them. It is an advantage to the borough council areas because the more houses are built, the more rates are collected and the more can be spent on services for the people. If people want to come to live here, why not let them?
At the same time, there is a balance to be struck, and there comes a stage when a village is no longer a village. It becomes larger than a village, and its character and personality are lost. There is room for development but we do not wish to see a rural sprawl. Some people have talked about wall-to-wall houses. We are not in the business of wall-to-wall houses, but we are in the business of giving people opportunity and choice. That is important.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does my Colleague agree that a clear lack of strategic planning by the Department — and certainly in the case of Lisburn, where a strategic plan that was to be produced for 1993 is still at a hearing in 1999 — has led to urban sprawl and to major traffic congestion because housing developments have been permitted here, there and everywhere, and not in any strategic way?

Mr Jim Shannon: I agree. I was about to make another point which would have illustrated that.
The North Down and Ards Area Plan was supposed to be finished in 1996, but here we are in 1999 and it is no nearer completion today. We have been told that it might not be finished until 2002. However, we on Ards Borough Council have pressed the point that this plan must be finished by the year 2000. We believe those issues have to be dealt with.
My Colleague MrSammyWilson will agree on what development will be like in the future. Gone are the days when a developer could have built houses here, there and everywhere and then gone away. In future, a builder will have to ensure that a strategic road structure is in place to take the traffic and that a traffic impact study has been done on any development. He will have to check that the sewerage system and the leisure services can cope with the extra houses. The developer will have to provide green areas within the development for playgrounds. Land will have to be set aside for health clinics and schools. In future, that type of strategic plan will have to be in place before any building can commence.

Ms Jane Morrice: What is the Member’s opinion of a community-impact assessment which asks the local people what they want and abides by their decisions?

Mr Jim Shannon: Elected representatives who have their ears close to the ground will know what local people want. Each elected representative should endeavour to do that. We on Ards Borough Council have prided ourselves on getting the opinion of local people and ensuring that what they want is the focus of our future moves.
I turn to out-of-town shopping centres. MrSammy Wilson mentioned the D5 development, which will affect every shopping centre in North Down and the greater Belfast area and is uncalled for and unreal. I am glad that Belfast City Council has taken a stand against it. Ards Borough Council has done likewise.
Any development should complement existing shopping facilities in town centres. It should encourage people to keep shopping there. The health of a town centre reflects the overall health of the town. A town centre should look good. It should have a good choice of shopping and not just building societies, banks and estate agents. These issues are important in the areas that we represent, because those areas are growing.
Adjourned at 4.58 pm.